MKMoose Posted March 3 Report Posted March 3 (edited) Motivation Being even roughly familiar with heat treatment methods, I’ve been quite disappointed with how the current implementation of quenching and tempering seems to be shaping up. I can agree with simplifying mechanics for the sake of fun gameplay, but to me this feels arbitrarily gamified, not simplified, and not even in a fun way. TLDR Make it both more fun and more realistic. Quenching should only be done once, except as a way of retrying. Tempering should always be done after quenching, and should only be done after quenching. Annealing should be done before quenching, or on its own when power isn't desired. Make the mechanic more skill-dependent. Miscellaneous improvements. Problems It's just tedious. Risks are completely insignificant at first, but after a couple iterations the player is basically asked how much they are willing to slog through for diminishing returns. Getting a high-power weapon, even without going into impractical extremes, easily requires quenching 10+ times in total and making at least one or two extra tool heads. It's described as a risk-reward tool improvement system, but in practice it easily becomes a matter of min-maxing against tolerance for tedium and randomness. An important element of risk-reward mechanics like this is that failure has to take away some options, so that a lost opportunity doesn't appear until at some later point. But in the current implementation it often ends up no longer having a significant risk-reward element, and instead it's random-cost. There is practically no skill expression. Choosing whether to temper or not mostly boils down to hyperoptimization in the best case scenario, while for high-power tools tempering is strictly harmful. Uncontrolled randomness is fundamentally unfitting for a delicate heat treatment process and tool improvement, especially combined with incremental gains rewarded for repetition. Whatever you do, you can go further, at the risk of having to do it all over again. If the workpiece shatters, it's just bad luck, and you couldn't do anything about it. I don't personally find fun in it, and I think that it just doesn't work well at all. Quenching for durability makes no sense, because durability buffs and shatter chance go against each other - if the shatter chance is higher than the relative durability increase, then quenching again is fundamentally an expected loss, and that threshold currently ends up being crossed very quickly, especially once you also consider time, effort, fuel and clay costs (not just raw metal). Consequently, increasing power is the only real use of quenching besides a cheap but small improvement to durability when power isn’t desired. Repeatedly quenched weapons are now by all reasonable metrics outright overpowered, and up to a certain point the added time and resource expenditure isn’t even so high as to be impractical. This also creates a massive jump over bronze and other early-game options - it's fairly easy despite the shatter chance (though quite tedious) to get an iron spear or falx with some 40-50% higher damage than a bronze equivalent. Whether that's intentional or not, it is a drastic change relative to the 1.21 balance. Last but not least, the current implementation is highly unrealistic. It's kind of inspired by reality, but it has several problems, most notably that heating up the metal sufficiently doesn't just destroy the effects of prior quenching and tempering as it should realistically. While I can understand a lot of simplifications for the sake of realism, in this case making the mechanic more realistic would arguably make it much simpler as well. Note: the numbers in different lists don't correspond to each other, they're just numbered for convenience. Primary goals Reduce the needless repetition. Even putting realism aside, where’s the fun in maximizing a single stat against tolerance for resource loss and tedium? This could be pretty much entirely addressed with the next point, and it's probably the most important goal here. Reverse all or most previously applied effects after heating above the lower critical temperature (~727C), as would happen realistically. This effect (austenitization) is why as a general rule quenching is only done once (except as a way of retrying after failed or unsatisfactory quenching). This also means that tempering is only done after quenching, because otherwise its effects (which are minimal on unquenched metal anyways) just get destroyed when heated up again. Make the effects of heat treatment less one-dimensional. The easiest way to amend this would be to just make tempering more realistic by giving it an increase to durability at the cost of power, and make quenching apply a reduction to durability, to create a push-pull dynamic of sorts. At the same time, throw the idea of quenching for durability out the window - quenching an item covered in clay is usually done while only covering part of it, especially the spine of blades, to harden the exposed edge while protecting the spine from becoming brittle, which has almost identical effect on the edge but reduces risk of cracking during quenching as well as preserves durability and flexibility of the spine. Make the effects of heat treatment (especially risk of shattering) more dependent on player skill, knowledge and preparation, and ideally extend that to the beneficial effects of quenching as well. Historically, it was critical to know how to quench to achieve optimal grain structure and maximum hardness while minimizing risk of cracking or warping (not outright shattering, though still in many cases rendering the workpiece largely unusable). This may include variable effects depending on closeness to "ideal" treatment, serving as a way to add space for skill expression and mastery of the exact parameters required to achieve the maximum benefits, as well as a level of uncertainty beyond pure randomness. Whatever is easy enough to implement and fits the game, as long as there are ways to control the effects in some capacity, ideally in a dynamic and engaging way and not just through increased complexity of the initial setup. Main suggestion While realism is not my main goal here, I think that staying close to reality could benefit a mechanic like this. The process that I'm aiming for would be very simple at a basic level, while retaining ample space for skill expression and risk-reward mechanics: for tools which benefit from damage or mining speed: anneal to reduce risk of quenching (optionally repeated for diminishing returns), then quench for a power buff at the cost of durability (retry if unsatisfactory), then temper (once or more) to mitigate the lost durability and balance out the desired proportion of durability to power, for tools which primarily benefit from durability: anneal to increase durability (optionally repeated for diminishing returns). Below is a handbook guide mock-up for this system (originally posted in a reply here), put in a spoiler box for clarity. Note that this is only an example, and the mechanics can be adjusted in many ways. Spoiler First, a couple notes to keep in mind: I've tried to keep the style similar to the in-game handbook, without the kind of formatting that I would typically use in larger text blocks like that (which, to be honest, the handbook could greatly benefit from in a few places), the total length of this mockup is roughly double that of the current handbook entry for quenching and tempering, caused in large part by there just being more individual mechanics to cover, there's a few underlined words which should link to an appropriate handbook page or search, and more information could be found in those separate pages, having appropriate tooltips at many stages of the process would help a lot to inform the player what they've just done, what they're about to do, and what they can do, without having to go back to the handbook too many times. Heat treatment of ferrous metals After forging a tool or weapon from a ferrous metal (iron, meteoric iron or steel), heat treatments can be performed to improve its qualities by controlled heating and cooling. All heat treatment processes start with bringing the metal up to a certain temperature range, which is shown in the tooltip of the worked item for each process. Once the item is heated past the minimum temperature, it should be kept in the desired range for several in-game minutes, which ensures that the metal temperature is uniform and the treatment is more effective. Finally, the workpiece has to be cooled down, depending on the type of treatment either slowly by allowing the item to cool in air, or rapidly by submerging it in a barrel of a quenchant liquid, for example water. In many cases, annealing alone is sufficient to obtain a high-quality tool. A more advanced process requires performing annealing, quenching and tempering in that order. Annealing Annealing is used to improve the durability of tools and weapons. It is also useful later as a way of reducing the risks of quenching. The temperature that the item has to reach for annealing is indicated by the metal turning to a red color. After soaking in that temperature, the item has to be cooled slowly in air. Annealing can be performed repeatedly, but the relative durability increase provided by subsequent iterations will diminish quickly. In order for repeated annealing to have the appropriate effect, the workpiece has to be kept close to the minimum required temperature, as heating it up excessively will remove the effects of prior heat treatments. Quenching Quenching can be used to greatly improve the power of tools and weapons, at the cost of making them brittle, which severely reduces their durability, and at the risk of breaking them. In order to amend the durability penalty, the next process of tempering will be necessary afterwards, while the risk of shattering the item can be controlled with several factors during quenching. This process can be especially valuable for weapons, but for some tools power value may provide little to no benefit. Quenching is a risky process which creates great internal stresses in the metal, which can sometimes cause the workpiece to shatter. An item which has been annealed will have its risk of breaking reduced, and repeated annealing will reduce that risk further. Similar to annealing, the workpiece needs to be red-hot for quenching, though the temperature should be slightly higher. Quenching from the optimal temperature range will produce slightly improved effects, but excessively high temperatures will increase the risk of shattering as well. The last step for quenching requires the metal to be cooled quickly by using Shift + RMB on a barrel of quenchant liquid like water, while holding the workpiece using tongs. The effects and risks of quenching can optionally be affected by certain other factors as well, including choice of different quenching medium like oil or brine instead of water, or covering the workpiece in fire clay. After an item has been quenched, you need to make sure not to heat it up too high above the tempering temperature, as doing so will reverse the effects of prior heat treatments. This means that a quenched item can only be tempered, unless you wish retry annealing and quenching if the first attempt was unsatisfactory. Tempering For a tool which has been quenched, tempering can be used to restore the durability back up and achieve a more satisfactory balance between durability and power. It will have no effect on unquenched tools, or on tools which have been heated back up too high after quenching. This process requires much lower temperatures than annealing and tempering, and similar to annealing it requires the workpiece to be cooled slowly in air. After tempering, the durability of the item will be increased back up, but the power will decrease slightly. More durability will be recovered when tempering at higher temperatures, while tempering at lower temperatures may be more useful when trying to preserve as much power as possible. Tempering can be repeated, albeit with diminishing returns, and durability can even be brought up to on par with an annealed item this way. Detailed mechanics A more specific description of the suggested heat treatment mechanics: Quenching - occurs when cooling quickly (in quenching medium) down from ~770 C or higher => greatly reduces durability but significantly increases power. Has a chance to shatter the workpiece (destroy it). Ideally, there could also be a chance to warp or crack the workpiece, as a middle-ground between no risks and outright shattering (would apply some debuffs and require requenching, welding or grinding to fix, though I'll save a more detailed description for later). May apply a chance to shatter or crack during usage to require at least one tempering, since quenched but untempered metal is brittle, and that's where shattering actually happens most easily. Effects and risks may vary depending on a lot of factors, potentially including (non-exhaustive): workpiece material - steel may have slightly different temperature thresholds and may be safer than iron, quenching speed (mostly dependent on quenching medium) - brine cools the metal faster so gives better hardness but is more risky, oil cools slower so doesn't give as much hardness but is safer, soak time (time between reaching quenching temperature and transfer to quenching medium) - quenching too fast without soaking for some time wouldn't apply the full effects and may increase risks, optimal temperature reached before quenching (~780-810 C) - the appropriate temperature range would have good results while retaining low risks; slightly higher temperature (close to overheating, probably ~850 C) could apply a greater power buff at a significantly greater risk of shattering or damaging the workpiece, differential quenching (covering the workpiece in clay) - reduces quenching risks and applies less severe durability reduction, but also applies a slightly lower power increase, interrupted quenching (removing the workpiece from the quenching medium partway through the process and allowing it to air cool the rest of the way; roughly what is nowadays known as martempering) - applies similar or slightly lower benefits, but is has reduced risk of cracking, normalization - described right below. Annealing (specifically normalization) - occurs when cooling slowly (in air) after heating to ~750-780 C (or just 750 C and higher) => increases durability and reduces quenching risks after each repetition. Only doing annealing is sufficient for tools which don't benefit from mining speed or damage bonuses (which roughly corresponds to tools which sustain repeated impact so shouldn't be quenched to avoid brittleness, like hammer or chisel). Effects could vary depending on the exact maximum temperature reached and on soak time, which is arguably especially important due to this mechanic being arguably the single most repetitive part of the system - the easiest way to do it would be to make the durability carry-over from previous iterations dependent on how well the player maintains the appropriate annealing temperature during soaking. Note: "normalization" is a relatively modern term, while "annealing" is a broader term which often also takes on a slightly different meaning from normalization. In the past normalization used to be referred to in a bunch of different ways like softening, thermal cycling, air-cooling, annealing - I think that just using the broad "annealing" term would be suitable. Tempering - occurs when cooling slowly (in air) after heating to ~150-650 C (~300-650 C would be suitable for gameplay purposes) => removes or heavily reduces durability debuffs and optionally slightly increases durability on top, as well as reduces power. If quenching applies a chance to shatter or crack during usage, then tempering removes it. Repeated tempering could be repeated to balance out power with durability to a favorable ratio, though diminishing quickly to the point of being mostly pointless after two or three repetitions. Effects may vary depending on the exact peak temperature that was reached. Mostly or entirely ineffective on tools that haven't been quenched yet or have been austenitized. Austenitization - occurs automatically when reaching ~720-750 C (after exceeding the lower critical temperature, often cited as 723 C or 727 C, but it's not consistent) => removes the power buff, greatly reduces or removes any effects on durability. Should likely occur over time or in multiple stages to make it less sudden, but ideally shouldn't overlap with the quenching temperature range for simplicity's sake. On a more technical level, durability loss or both effects may be extended up to ~780 C as a way of implementing diminishing annealing stackability and adding a layer of skill expression to soaking the tool near the lower bound of the annealing range. Note: this is again a modern term, and historically it wasn't really known as much of anything - just something like "heating to full red heat", a lot of the time. Overheating - occurs automatically when reaching ~850-900 C => removes all existing effects, both buffs and debuffs, and resets quenching risks. May apply additional penalties, since going above ~900 C is realistically very risky, though wasted prior effort could be considered enough of a penalty already, so it might be best to just let the player try again without additional problems. Should ideally be applied over time or in multiple stages at different temperature thresholds, so that the effects are not too sudden. Note on the power ceiling: after quenching, the metal has the highest hardness (roughly translating to power) that it can have, but is brittle. Different peak hardness could be achieved depending on a variety of factors during quenching. Technically, you could use the tool right away after quenching without tempering, but it will easily break on strong impact, so tempering is used to achieve a suitable balance between power and durability. Note on gameplay complexity: many of the mechanics can be quite easily adjusted if they are deemed too complicated. What I describe is roughly what I would consider to be a suitable implementation which takes into account a bunch of the most important realistic factors that I consider to be beneficial for gameplay, or at least not harmful. From this point, whatever is deemed unnecessary could be stripped out or simplified. Note on stacking: stackable effects should arguably follow a quickly diminishing geometric sequence or geometric series, to ensure that the effectiveness decreases quickly to disincentivize excessive repetition. This also doesn't require tracking the number of times that a workpiece has been treated. In some cases, adding an additional constant component would allow to further tailor the exact behavior (for example, making annealing affect shatter chance using a formula like after = 0.3 * before + 0.1 would mean that subsequent iterations make the shatter chance quickly drop with each iteration, but not all the way down to zero and instead to 0.1, so that some level of risk is always retained). Note on temperature thresholds: if temperatures are only decided by strict minimum and maximum thresholds, then the process becomes less reliant on skill and more on timing, and loses almost all uncertainty in favor of robotic precision. Adding some level of uncertainty or randomness, as well as soaking implemented through temperature averaging or whatnot, would incentivize the player to aim closer to the center of temperature bands and require more careful judgement instead of simply waiting until the temperature crosses a specific threshold. Skill expression Tyron has expressed concerns that these mechanics wouldn't be as interesting as the current system and wouldn't offer interesting choices to the player, as well as thought that it seems to "sacrifice gameplay for realism". While I find that debatable and somewhat reductive - I think that just reduced repetition and improved verisimilitude would make it more enjoyable for many people - I want to explicitly point out various additional factors which could make a more realistic system interesting, mainly through making heat treatment into a largely skill-dependent process, requiring experience and knowledge for optimal results: Temperature management. Requiring or incentivizing the player to soak the workpiece at the target temperature would take much more skill than just reaching that temperature. Combined with some manner of punishment for exceeding certain temperature thresholds, this creates a mini-game of sorts where the player has to carefully monitor the temperature and keep it near a suitable target level for at least a couple seconds, instead of just making a single, robotic comparison. Especially useful to make annealing more interesting. Variable annealing effects based on temperature. Requiring the player to maintain the correct temperature for a period of time (and rewarding it with greater durability) could be especially useful as a way of adding more interest to what is otherwise the most repetitive part of the system. Exceeding the optimal temperature range would only involve some wasted time and fuel, not material, but still add a lot of interest. Variable quenching effects based on several factors. Several components like soak time would be purely beneficial to the player, rewarding them for doing the process more optimally. Toeing closer to the upper edge of the quenching temperature range but before overheating could be a proper risk-reward mechanic - greater chance of shattering and risk of accidentally overheating, but higher power ceiling. Other components like quenching medium and differential quenching would have various kinds of tradeoffs - greater risk but greater power, lower risk but lower power, higher durability but lower power, additional cost but lower risk, this kind of stuff. The factors are also listed out in the "detailed mechanics" section. Variable tempering effects based on temperature. At low temperatures (generally below ~400 C) the reduction to hardness is not as great but the metal remains fairly brittle, and that transitions quite smoothly through the temperature range up to ~650 C where the metal becomes significantly softened, which could add a lot of additional depth to tempering after quenching. Concerns and questions Some potential issues that have been brought up by Tyron and others. Wouldn't the system have just one optimal path? => Not really, or at least not one universally optimal path. The point of optional factors which influence the results of heat treatment, frequently in the form of tradeoffs or push-pull relationships, is precisely to have multiple optimal paths (the tools which don't benefit from power may have just one optimal path, but it's not like the current system doesn't do the same). If a certain process is always optimal for a specific purpose, that seems more tedious than fun. => To some extent I see it like steel, a way of improving your iron tools at some sort of cost - no risks or choices necessary to make it interesting. Achieving additional benefits for voluntarily putting in additional effort is inherently quite rewarding. But at the same time, I aimed with this suggestion to provide a variety of options which require varied amount of time and effort to achieve different end results, which seems like a good way to avoid excessive tedium of always repeating the same process. Certain tools don't benefit from power, making quenching irrelevant for them. => This is almost the same as quenching without the use of clay right now. And arguably better for a number of reasons. I honestly just don't see any problem here, in large part for the reasons described in the two below points. Durability at no risk would be a must-have for tools that don't need power. => That's intentional, but limited with quickly diminishing returns. With that said, adding some risk to it is quite easy by making the durability carry-over from previous iterations dependent on how well the player maintains the appropriate annealing temperature during soaking (primarily by reducing the carry-over when too close to the upper end of that range). Exceeding the optimal temperature range would only involve some wasted time and fuel, not material, but still add a lot of interest. Durability at no risk would be uninteresting for tools that don't need power. => It's basically the same as the current mechanics, except it's actually worthwhile, doesn't have a random shatter chance, and matches reality very naturally. It's arguably also much more suitable for expendable tools like hammers and chisels which the player is expected to craft in high quantity anyways. And finally, a newer player can stick to annealing and get a neat buff for a bit of extra effort, without having to learn the ins and outs of quenching right out of the gate, whereas in the current system it's easier and more convenient to quench for power - kind of backwards if you ask me. Isn't this just a binary choice between power and durability? => No. It's a complex system of tradeoffs between power, durability, risk, resources and time. Depending on desired balance, some more complex processes may allow to get both significantly higher power and an effective durability increase (even accounting for material losses). The current system is arguably much worse in this regard - almost entirely a binary choice, because it's almost never worthwhile to quench one tool for both durability and power. This solution seems to sacrifice gameplay for the sake of realism. => My express intent was to make the system both more enjoyable and more realistic, so I'd need a clearer pointer to how it goes over the line. I think the current system achieves neither for the most part, and arguably doesn't even achieve its stated goal of "a high risk, high reward mechanic". I believe my suggestion achieves all three fairly well (or at least somewhat better), but if there are any specific ways in which it may be harmful to gameplay, I'm more than willing to hear and perhaps amend them. Keep in mind the above "skill expression and interest" section as well, which points to the ways in which I think that a more complex, realistic system could be much more fun as well. This system seems too complex for many players to enjoy. => The exact level of complexity could be tweaked, but I think that the process should be ultimately quite easy to understand - while the under-the-hood mechanics may be very complex, it's not nearly critical for the player to understand the real physical processes and minute details of all the different heat treatments. A newer player can be eased into the system with annealing giving an easy durability buff, without having to bother with quenching, while those seeking a more complex challenge would be rewarded appropriately. A well-written handbook guide and descriptive tooltips at every stage of the process can also go a long way. Possible additional features Judging temperature by color. A really cool change which I would love to see would be to remove the exact temperature readouts in the tooltips and require the player to judge the temperature of the workpiece by color as it has been done historically and still is done often, though that would likely be optional and probably easily circumvented with commands. It would be one of the more interesting ways to introduce more proper skill expression and mastery to heat treatment in place of robotic precision and plain mathematical comparisons, which would also make a skilled blacksmith a highly valuable member of any multiplayer server that decides to play this way. It might be fun, as an extra factor, to allow using a piece of magnetic metal to test whether the workpiece is magnetic, as this is also an indicator that the metal has exceeded a certain temperature threshold. Case-hardening of iron. If we were to aim for realism, it would be necessary to require case-hardening before quenching iron, since quenching is generally ineffective for wrought iron due to insufficient carbon content. Case-hardening would be done by placing the workpiece in a clay box packed with a carbon source, and heating up that box for an extended time to high temperatures. Wrought iron could still be annealed without case-hardening. Work hardening and annealing for bronze. It would be a simpler early-game heat treatment process to ease players into forging more gradually, and to avoid a too steep jump in terms of required and possible investment into a single tool between the metal tiers. Edited March 24 by MKMoose Tried addressing some of Tyron's concerns after chatting over on Discord. Added "skill expression" and "concerns and questions" sections. Renamed normalization to annealing. 33 2 2
Jacsmac Posted March 3 Report Posted March 3 Realistic heat-treating sounds fun. I'm currently taking material science classes in college, and being able to apply my new knowledge of things like austenitization in a video game of all things would be very engaging! From a gameplay standpoint, leaning more towards realism (without being too esoteric) makes processes like this feel more intuitive; being able to rely on real-world experiences really builds that sweet sense of immersion. I haven't played the new preview release yet, but the way you describe the tediousness of the current heat-treating system makes it sound somewhat like Minecraft's tedious enchantment system, which is not uncontrollably random itself but still rather arbitrary and hyper-optimization prone just the same. P.S. Your 'Steel Worker' rank is rather fitting for this post. 6
NastyFlytrap Posted March 7 Report Posted March 7 I agree with this. The way quenching and tempering is implemented is anti-fun. I dont like it and it needs to go. I'm all for quenching and tampering but not like this and you lay out some good ways to do it.
williams_482 Posted March 7 Report Posted March 7 This is an extremely good suggestion. I think the recommended process works fine with workpiece temperatures visible, and I'd even argue that it should display a "live" shatter chance for quenching based on current temp. Hiding information just to make knowing something a relevant player skill doesn't usually sit well with me, and I also worry about the effects on folks with various types of visual impairments. I'll also argue that completely resetting the work piece is a wholly adequate punishment for overheating. Overheating is likely to be a really easy mistake to make because all it takes is wandering off at a bad time. Players would be annoyed enough at loosing all heat treating progress after being distracted from the forge by a rogue drifter, a forgotten lunch, or a temporal storm. Losing the work piece itself is excessive. 5
DeadlyEssence01 Posted March 12 Report Posted March 12 This seems like it'd be a really nice implementation for smithing. Maybe when I'm more familiar with the code base, I could turn this into a mod.
Dilan Rona Posted March 12 Report Posted March 12 It's a new mechanic. Just introduced as well. How about its left as is till we understand it better. And then the team can work on making it better later on. Even if it's gamefied as you stated, at least we have that mechanic now. 1
Heegrim Posted March 12 Report Posted March 12 Maybe there should be a Blacksmith class that can see the exact temperatures of the workpiece and other classes just see a qualitative description like "Cold" "Warm" "Hot" "Red Hot" "White Hot". I am all for moving away from needing to look at the description box to get information on everything (while still having the option there for accessibility of course). I hope they add more diegetic crafting recipes like scraping hides on the ground too.
NastyFlytrap Posted March 12 Report Posted March 12 3 hours ago, Dilan Rona said: It's a new mechanic. Just introduced as well. How about its left as is till we understand it better. And then the team can work on making it better later on. Even if it's gamefied as you stated, at least we have that mechanic now. Yes and now is the perfect time to work on it some more before they move on to other things and it stays like this for three years until it gets reworked. 2 hours ago, Heegrim said: Maybe there should be a Blacksmith class that can see the exact temperatures of the workpiece and other classes just see a qualitative description like "Cold" "Warm" "Hot" "Red Hot" "White Hot". I am all for moving away from needing to look at the description box to get information on everything (while still having the option there for accessibility of course). I hope they add more diegetic crafting recipes like scraping hides on the ground too. Meh. Never cared for the class system and taking that ability away from the player now would just be rude. That being said, i am all for more diegetic methods and systems.
Teh Pizza Lady Posted March 13 Report Posted March 13 good suggestion, but I think it's a bit overly complicated it would be great for a forging mod for enthusiasts. I don't think I would enjoy this as a part of the base game, but I could be wrong. 2
coolAlias Posted March 13 Report Posted March 13 I'm finally at the point where I'm making iron tools and the whole quenching and tempering process as it is just isn't for me. The current calculus leans far too heavily on the side of risk rather than reward, not to mention it is a very tedious process. I like a lot of the OP's suggestions, but my preferred take on it would be we get to choose 1 option (e.g. durability OR power) with no stacking, so we just do whatever the process is once and we're done. Smithing, as much as I enjoy it, is already a very long and convoluted process.
7embre Posted March 17 Report Posted March 17 (edited) Sounds very good, actually. I too feel that the current quench-temper implementation is rather gamified and misleading in a way. Being able to tell the temperature of a workpiece by it's glow color is already in the base game, adding proper heat treatment to the equation just makes voxel smithing as a whole into a chef's kiss. Would be cool if devs notice it! Edited March 17 by 7embre typo 1
NastyFlytrap Posted March 17 Report Posted March 17 9 hours ago, 7embre said: Sounds very good, actually. I too feel that the current quench-temper implementation is rather gamified and misleading in a way. Being able to tell the temperature of a workpiece by it's glow color is already in the base game, adding proper heat treatment to the equation just makes voxel smithing as a whole into a chef's kiss. Would be cool if devs notice it! I mean, we could just.... Tag them. A bit rude, but certainly effective.
MKMoose Posted March 20 Author Report Posted March 20 (edited) On 3/13/2026 at 6:21 AM, Teh Pizza Lady said: good suggestion, but I think it's a bit overly complicated it would be great for a forging mod for enthusiasts. I don't think I would enjoy this as a part of the base game, but I could be wrong. I've edited the suggestion somewhat after a chat with Tyron over on Discord, and I've mentioned your concern as well in a new section of the post. Feel free to tell me if this is a satisfactory response, and whether you think that some specific mechanics go over the line especially far: On 3/3/2026 at 8:38 PM, MKMoose said: The exact level of complexity could be tweaked, but I think that the process should be ultimately quite easy to understand - while the under-the-hood mechanics may be very complex, it's not necessary to understand them in detail. A newer player can be eased into the system with normalization giving an easy durability buff, without having to bother with quenching, while those seeking a more complex challenge would be rewarded appropriately. A well-written handbook guide and descriptive tooltips at every stage of the process can also go a long way. On 3/13/2026 at 7:09 PM, coolAlias said: I like a lot of the OP's suggestions, but my preferred take on it would be we get to choose 1 option (e.g. durability OR power) with no stacking, so we just do whatever the process is once and we're done. Smithing, as much as I enjoy it, is already a very long and convoluted process. I think Tyron has said that adding a config for something like this could be a suitable short-term solution. I don't think resorting to a config is a good idea, but sure, it could be nice for those who don't want excess complexity. Edited March 20 by MKMoose 1
Fogman Posted March 20 Report Posted March 20 Your suggested process does add a ton of complexity and I can take that or leave it, but more succinctly the reason I think this post is accumulating so much positive attention is because none of us like the bizarre KMMO style "rerolling for +# until you fail and break the item" quenching and tempering implementation. One quench and temper cycle to make the tool more durable makes sense, but having your shovel head burst into a cloud of temporary particles and disappear like a firecracker doesn't make sense, and it doesn't add anything good to the process of making tools. It's a skinner box hamster wheel for gambling addicts and every game I can name that includes a feature like this also sells "get out of jail free" tickets in a real money "cash" shop where you can pay ~$20USD to avoid your item breaking next time you fail the roll. 1
NastyFlytrap Posted March 20 Report Posted March 20 4 hours ago, Fogman said: Your suggested process does add a ton of complexity and I can take that or leave it, but more succinctly the reason I think this post is accumulating so much positive attention is because none of us like the bizarre KMMO style "rerolling for +# until you fail and break the item" quenching and tempering implementation. One quench and temper cycle to make the tool more durable makes sense, but having your shovel head burst into a cloud of temporary particles and disappear like a firecracker doesn't make sense, and it doesn't add anything good to the process of making tools. It's a skinner box hamster wheel for gambling addicts and every game I can name that includes a feature like this also sells "get out of jail free" tickets in a real money "cash" shop where you can pay ~$20USD to avoid your item breaking next time you fail the roll. This is a valid point. Even if we dont go with these ways, i do agree that it just needs a rework completely, and in all honesty, while i am ambivalent towards the actual changes suggested by this post, i support the ideas of less repetition, it losing everything if you heat it too much since it softens up, making the whole mechanic have more depth, and doing that with more skill and knowhow, although im not sure how you'd do that last one, but i like it as an idea.
Odrayak Posted March 21 Report Posted March 21 And to this we add another problem that is not being talked about and that I became aware of when testing the new version: iron machining has become completely broken due to the new temperature mechanics. It was already difficult to make iron/steel plates having to rely on the capricious wind, so now you can't even finish the plates in the pneumatic hammer before they cool down. That an optional mechanic, such as tempering, is breaking basic mechanics I don’t think is right. Especially considering that it hasn’t only broken blacksmithing with the temperature mismatches: the fuel cost for everything, like food, burnt flint, etc., has increased quite a bit, and getting coal is not exactly one of the most fun activities in the game. I suppose they will fix it in the final version... We’ll see what comes out.
Erik Posted March 21 Report Posted March 21 To be honest, I don't think the games quenching/tempering mechanics are in a bad place right now. Quenching and tempering processes replicate the basic idea of what they are in real life Quenching being fast cooling from higher specific temperature range Tempering being slow cooling from lower specific temperature range Only the element of soaking the metal at specific temperatures is lost It presents a working risk vs reward vs effort mechanic instead of player skill expression Multiple quenching cycles increasing reward but also shatter chance While not intrinsically realistic, could be interpreted as multiple attempts at getting "optimal" quench Players can reaccess growing risk after each quench Tempering allowing player effort and time investment to lower risk Tempering is a inherently time intensive process, so making it more optional is a good choice High risk behavior (i.e. tempering multiple times without quenching) is still possible and can lead to high rewards fast While the ideas your post provides are interesting, with multiple factors having different effects on quenching results for example, and would allow for more player skill expression, I think they would over-complicate the system significantly. With soaking, optimal temperature for example, we would not only have two "minigames" players would need to play at the same time, but whose rules and effects also need to be communicated to the player in some way. Reading rules manuals is, weirdly, apparently not fun for most people. So instead may approach to fix/reduce your listed problems with the current system: Tedious process: This is in my opinion mostly a balancing issue. There should be an incentive to reward additional effort, but currently the risk reduction of tempering appears to high. Making tempering less effective or maybe just increasing the base shatter chance could "shorten" the process significantly. No player skill expression: This is admittedly not easy to fix. My idea would be a "hardcore smithing" mode: Selected as an optional setting on world creation Removes temperature tooltips/displays, temperature needs to be approximated by the player from ingot color Quenching, even outside the quenching temperature range, can cause the work item to shatter (I'm unsure if this is not already the case) Decrease quenching and tempering temperature range Austenitization/Overheating: Going above the quenching temperature range significantly and permanently increases shatter chance. Yeah, not realistic, but a reset would just punish the player with tedium. Hyperoptimization: Same solution as 1. Randomness unfitting: I fundamentally disagree that this is a problem. Quenching for durability: Here I also disagree to see this as a problem. If it were a problem, the solution would just be to remove quenching for durability. Quenching for durability is still risk vs reward, though tempering should probably have a drawback (like when quenching for power), to reduce tedium. Overpowered: Progression in VS is already structured in such a way, that lower tier stuff just gets completely outclassed when a higher tier material becomes available, so I don't think the power jump compared to bronze is an issue. Any further issues with the power level can simply be adjusted by balancing. Highly unrealistic: While not entirely realistic, it still realistically depicts the basic process of quenching and tempering. I don't think we need to go further, especially if it would harm gameplay.
NastyFlytrap Posted March 21 Report Posted March 21 18 minutes ago, Erik said: To be honest, I don't think the games quenching/tempering mechanics are in a bad place right now. Quenching and tempering processes replicate the basic idea of what they are in real life Quenching being fast cooling from higher specific temperature range Tempering being slow cooling from lower specific temperature range Only the element of soaking the metal at specific temperatures is lost It presents a working risk vs reward vs effort mechanic instead of player skill expression Multiple quenching cycles increasing reward but also shatter chance While not intrinsically realistic, could be interpreted as multiple attempts at getting "optimal" quench Players can reaccess growing risk after each quench Tempering allowing player effort and time investment to lower risk Tempering is a inherently time intensive process, so making it more optional is a good choice High risk behavior (i.e. tempering multiple times without quenching) is still possible and can lead to high rewards fast While the ideas your post provides are interesting, with multiple factors having different effects on quenching results for example, and would allow for more player skill expression, I think they would over-complicate the system significantly. With soaking, optimal temperature for example, we would not only have two "minigames" players would need to play at the same time, but whose rules and effects also need to be communicated to the player in some way. Reading rules manuals is, weirdly, apparently not fun for most people. So instead may approach to fix/reduce your listed problems with the current system: Tedious process: This is in my opinion mostly a balancing issue. There should be an incentive to reward additional effort, but currently the risk reduction of tempering appears to high. Making tempering less effective or maybe just increasing the base shatter chance could "shorten" the process significantly. No player skill expression: This is admittedly not easy to fix. My idea would be a "hardcore smithing" mode: Selected as an optional setting on world creation Removes temperature tooltips/displays, temperature needs to be approximated by the player from ingot color Quenching, even outside the quenching temperature range, can cause the work item to shatter (I'm unsure if this is not already the case) Decrease quenching and tempering temperature range Austenitization/Overheating: Going above the quenching temperature range significantly and permanently increases shatter chance. Yeah, not realistic, but a reset would just punish the player with tedium. Hyperoptimization: Same solution as 1. Randomness unfitting: I fundamentally disagree that this is a problem. Quenching for durability: Here I also disagree to see this as a problem. If it were a problem, the solution would just be to remove quenching for durability. Quenching for durability is still risk vs reward, though tempering should probably have a drawback (like when quenching for power), to reduce tedium. Overpowered: Progression in VS is already structured in such a way, that lower tier stuff just gets completely outclassed when a higher tier material becomes available, so I don't think the power jump compared to bronze is an issue. Any further issues with the power level can simply be adjusted by balancing. Highly unrealistic: While not entirely realistic, it still realistically depicts the basic process of quenching and tempering. I don't think we need to go further, especially if it would harm gameplay. I still hate the idea of 'roll a dice X number of times and if you get unlucky you have to make a fresh tool'. That is peak gacha game BS and has no place in this game. Also, i really dont think the current system of doing it over and over is realistic. OP said it right.
Fogman Posted March 21 Report Posted March 21 (edited) 36 minutes ago, NastyFlytrap said: I still hate the idea of 'roll a dice X number of times and if you get unlucky you have to make a fresh tool'. That is peak gacha game BS and has no place in this game. Also, i really dont think the current system of doing it over and over is realistic. OP said it right. It isn't even a gacha game mechanic actually, a gacha game would make you pay to gamble for copies of the item and then if you won, you could combine copies of the item into a stronger version of it. Rather, it comes from predatory Korean MMORPGs like DFO. That game in particular became the highest-earning videogame in the world, generating more than 23 billion dollars worth of revenue by selling pay-to-win features like performance enhancing "avatar" equipment, powercreeped "title" and "pet" equipment and, last but certainly not least, the tickets I mentioned that keep your item from being destroyed when you upgrade it one too many times and fail the roll. Since DFO, this mechanic has become a tried and true favorite of Korean and Chinese MMORPGs and it's a huge revenue generator for them because it has the ability to get their player base of mostly children addicted to gambling. 56 minutes ago, Erik said: It presents a working risk vs reward vs effort mechanic instead of player skill expression No, it does not "present a working risk vs reward vs effort" mechanic as demonstrable from the fact that two people who each try to quench their weapon the same number of times produces one person whose weapon randomly breaks (they get nothing) despite attempting it with dozens of items and one person who randomly succeeds (they get the best possible item) in only one try. The former player has accepted more risk and gone through more effort but lost everything while the latter player has accepted less risk and put in less effort and won. There's a name for this system and it is "gambling" and the reason why gambling is very popular in the world is because people get addicted to it. The reason why all sorts of miserable looking old people are sitting and pulling the lever at slot machines in Vegas isn't because they're thrilled and it's very fun, they are there because they are addicted to the feeling that maybe this next one will be "the one" and they will finally be rich. It is unrealistic in practice and unfair in principle for your steel item to explode and disappear because you heat treated it. Vintage Story does not need KRMMO child gambling mechanics. Edited March 21 by Fogman I originally wrote "world's highest-earning videogame in the world" and repeated myself. 1 2
Erik Posted March 21 Report Posted March 21 45 minutes ago, NastyFlytrap said: I still hate the idea of 'roll a dice X number of times and if you get unlucky you have to make a fresh tool'. That is peak gacha game BS and has no place in this game. 15 minutes ago, Fogman said: Vintage Story does not need KRMMO child gambling mechanics. Randomness doesn't equal gambling. Otherwise every game involving rolling dice would be need to be considered gambling. Gambling involves real money. I can understand not liking randomness as a significant factor in game systems, however randomness already is a significant factor in the game as it exists: World generation is entirely based on generating a lot of random numbers That includes ore and other resource patch generation Drops from creatures but also things like ores are random Critical hits from weapon sharpening are random Panning is random Loot in ruins is random etc. The meaningful difference here is obviously, that the current quenching mechanic presents an entirely optional risk vs reward (vs effort) mechanic. You are putting your tool head at risk to potentially gain an even better tool head. You can invest additional effort (tempering) to improve the odds of success. 45 minutes ago, Fogman said: No, it does not "present a working risk vs reward vs effort" mechanic as demonstrable from the fact that two people who each try to quench their weapon the same number of times produces one person whose weapon randomly breaks (they get nothing) despite attempting it with dozens of items and one person who randomly succeeds (they get the best possible item) in only one try. The former player has accepted more risk and gone through more effort but lost everything while the latter player has accepted less risk and put in less effort and won. Looking at the probabilities in this example tells a different story. Suppose we say both try to quench their tool head 5 times: Person A successfully quenches 5 times, the probability for their tool to break were: 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%. Their tool head didn't break, so the chance for this occurring is 95% * 90% * 85% * 80% * 75% = 43.605% Person B failed shattered a tool head on each of their 5 quenching attempts, so at 5%, 5%, 5%, 5%, 5% shatter chances. So the chances for this occurring are 5% * 5% * 5% * 5% * 5% = 0.00003125% That is exceptionally improbable bad luck for person B. We can't just look at one cherry picked outcome and draw up any conclusion. The experiment outcome is framed in a way, that suggests Person B risked more, because he lost 5 tool heads, even when the probabilities against this scenario happening were in his favor. The risk of losing 5 tool heads was the 0.00003125% for both of them and chance of losing no tool heads was 43.605% for both of them. Risk vs reward doesn't even mean taking risks always pays off, the premise of the experiment is false. Person A could have lost his tool head on the last quenching attempt and Person B could have succeeded on the last quenching attempt. How do we interpret this result? How do we even value the different results? Person B lost 4 tool heads, but has the better tool at the end, while Person A has no tool head anymore. Maybe he now has 4 unquenched tools, however that isn't established in the experiment. In my opinion, the thought experiment also has too much ambiguity to be useful. 1
Fogman Posted March 21 Report Posted March 21 1 minute ago, Erik said: Randomness doesn't equal gambling. Otherwise every game involving rolling dice would be need to be considered gambling. Gambling involves real money. I can understand not liking randomness as a significant factor in game systems, however randomness already is a significant factor in the game as it exists: World generation is entirely based on generating a lot of random numbers That includes ore and other resource patch generation Drops from creatures but also things like ores are random Critical hits from weapon sharpening are random Panning is random Loot in ruins is random etc. Well, first of all let's get this question of definitions out of the way. gambling noun gam·bling ˈgam-b(ə-)liŋ : the practice or activity of betting : the practice of risking money or other stakes in a game or bet Anyway, unless you object to merriam-webster's definition of gambling, risking "other stakes", in this case, a tool head in a game (in this case, Vintage Story 1.22), fits the definition of gambling without issue. There is by necessity randomness in the game's world generation and loot tables so that each playthrough is different even if you made the same decisions. It doesn't follow that all sources of randomness improve the game. When the world is different in each place you are encouraged to explore more of the world (and this is a net gain insofar as it is interesting to explore the world), but when your items randomly and inexplicably break due to KRMMO child gambling mechanics when they are heat treated you are encouraged to keep trying until you succeed (and this is a net gain insofar as it is interesting to do the same thing over and over), and my answer is that this does not actually add anything fun to the game. It is just gambling with a thin veneer. It punishes the unlucky and makes people who want something spend more and more of their time and effort in an attempt to achieve it with absolutely no promise that they ever will, and it rewards the lucky who will take for granted that it is normal to receive the reward that they did. 1 minute ago, Erik said: Looking at the probabilities in this example tells a different story. Suppose we say both try to quench their tool head 5 times: Person A successfully quenches 5 times, the probability for their tool to break were: 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%. Their tool head didn't break, so the chance for this occurring is 95% * 90% * 85% * 80% * 75% = 43.605% Person B failed shattered a tool head on each of their 5 quenching attempts, so at 5%, 5%, 5%, 5%, 5% shatter chances. So the chances for this occurring are 5% * 5% * 5% * 5% * 5% = 0.00003125% That is exceptionally improbable bad luck for person B. We can't just look at one cherry picked outcome and draw up any conclusion. You misunderstood my comment on a conceptual level. I said that the two people are both attempting to quench each item the same number of times (in this case, 5), not that each person attempts to quench it until it breaks and then the first person has it break on the first quench every time. There is no scenario where in trying to quench an item a person "shatters the tool head 5 times" because that is actually them failing to quench 5 different items. This sort of misunderstanding is probably why you believe that this system is a "working risk vs reward vs effort mechanic" since you imagine that "an item" is an entire imaginary set of multiple items which could potentially be completed if you kept trying. There is in reality no way in this system for your effort to mitigate your risk because for every additional item you attempt to temper to a given level, you once again risk the entire item. 2
MKMoose Posted March 21 Author Report Posted March 21 (edited) 4 hours ago, Erik said: Quenching and tempering processes replicate the basic idea of what they are in real life Quenching being fast cooling from higher specific temperature range Tempering being slow cooling from lower specific temperature range Only the element of soaking the metal at specific temperatures is lost [...] While not entirely realistic, it still realistically depicts the basic process of quenching and tempering. I don't think we need to go further, especially if it would harm gameplay. The realistic process is roughly: Normalize (once or more, may be skipped), to reduce risks of quenching and improve toughness. Quench (only once; if unsatisfactory then go back to 1. and retry), to maximize hardness at the cost of making the metal brittle. Temper (once or more), to balance out a desired proportion between hardness and other properties. I can understand simplifications and minor discrepancies, but the order of operations in the current system isn't similar to the realistic process at all. Tempering is actually in this weird spot where the in-game implementation is somehow more similar to real-life normalization in certain regards, because it's done before quenching to reduce risks. 4 hours ago, Erik said: Tedious process: This is in my opinion mostly a balancing issue. There should be an incentive to reward additional effort, but currently the risk reduction of tempering appears to high. Making tempering less effective or maybe just increasing the base shatter chance could "shorten" the process significantly. [...] Hyperoptimization: Same solution as 1. Repetition may be greatly reduced by just tweaking the numbers, that much I can agree with. But making tempering less effective would make it almost completely useless. It's a matter of hyperoptimization in the best case scenario (quenching for low power or for durability), while for high-power tools tempering is strictly harmful in the current balance. 4 hours ago, Erik said: Quenching for durability: Here I also disagree to see this as a problem. If it were a problem, the solution would just be to remove quenching for durability. Quenching for durability is still risk vs reward, though tempering should probably have a drawback (like when quenching for power), to reduce tedium. The problem with quenching for durability is that it doesn't even offer a proper tradeoff like power does (because power exists on a completely separate balance axis). Shatter chance and durability increase are effectively the same effect but going different ways, and once the risk outweighs the benefits, it's just fundamentally not worth it. The first iteration gives you a 14% expected effective durability increase (controlled for resource loss). The second iteration falls down to a 2.5% expected effective durability increase, or ~4.8% if you temper in-between. Starting from the third iteration, it becomes an expected loss, and that's only considering material savings, while time, fuel and clay costs actually make it even less worthwhile. Even if you abuse the ability to temper indefinitely, which is currently possible though contradicts the handbook guide, it will quickly start costing you more time than it's worth in durability. Why even allow the player to waste time and resources on something like this? 4 hours ago, Erik said: It presents a working risk vs reward vs effort mechanic instead of player skill expression I argue that it doesn't, because it doesn't have any standard risk-reward mechanics. A proper risk-reward mechanic should generally always have at least one of the following: scarce opportunity - if the player is allowed to risk wasting a limited opportunity for a greater reward, then the risk feels more impactful; in the current system, the risk is taken very frequently, failure doesn't present any meaningful setback besides wasted time, and retrying is allowed instantly, tightened error margin - if the player is allowed to play in a way that leaves less room for error in mechanical execution in exchange for some benefits, then the inherent risk naturally creates tension and engagement, and it also serves as a method of self-regulating difficulty; in the current system, the "risk" is purely an uniteresting random chance. There's also a lot of other things that could be mentioned here, but scarce opportunity and tightened error margin are, in my experience, the most common and most essential parts of a good risk-reward mechanic. Edited March 21 by MKMoose 1
NastyFlytrap Posted March 21 Report Posted March 21 4 minutes ago, MKMoose said: The realistic process is roughly: Normalize (once or more, may be skipped), to reduce risks of quenching and improve toughness. Quench (only once; if unsatisfactory then go back to 1. and retry), to maximize hardness at the cost of making the metal brittle. Temper (once or more), to balance out a desired proportion between hardness and other properties. I can understand simplifications and minor discrepancies, but the order of operations in the current system isn't similar to the realistic process at all. Tempering is actually in this weird spot where the in-game implementation is somehow more similar to real-life normalization in certain regards, because it's done before quenching to reduce risks. Repetition may be greatly reduced by just tweaking the numbers, that much I can agree with. But making tempering less effective would make it almost completely useless. It's a matter of hyperoptimization in the best case scenario (quenching for low power or for durability), while for high-power tools tempering is strictly harmful in the current balance. The problem with quenching for durability is that it doesn't even offer a proper tradeoff like power does (because power exists on a completely separate balance axis). Shatter chance and durability increase are effectively the same effect but going different ways, and once the risk outweighs the benefits, it's just fundamentally not worth it. The first iteration gives you a 14% expected effective durability increase (controlled for resource loss). The second iteration falls down to a 2.5% expected effective durability increase, or ~4.8% if you temper in-between. Starting from the third iteration, it becomes an expected loss, and that's only considering material savings, while time, fuel and clay costs actually make it even less worthwhile. Even if you abuse the ability to temper indefinitely, which is currently possible though contradicts the handbook guide, it will quickly start costing you more time than it's worth in durability. Why even allow the player to waste time and resources on something like this? I argue that it doesn't, because it doesn't have any standard risk-reward mechanics. A proper risk-reward mechanic should generally always have at least one of the following: scarce opportunity - if the player is allowed to risk wasting a limited opportunity for a greater reward, then the risk feels more impactful; in the current system, the risk is taken very frequently, failure doesn't present any meaningful setback besides wasted time, and retrying is allowed instantly, tightened error margin - if the player is allowed to play in a way that leaves less room for error in mechanical execution in exchange for some benefits, then the inherent risk naturally creates tension and engagement, and it also serves as a method of self-regulating difficulty; in the current system, the "risk" is purely an uniteresting random chance, There's also a lot of other things that could be mentioned here, but scarce opportunity and tightened error margin are, in my experience, the most common and most essential parts of a good risk-reward mechanic. Honestly, the ideal solution here, for a semi-realistic feel, which Vintage Story is intending to aim towards, would be to make a system where you can quench and temper and you have to balance how much you want of one, at the cost of reducing the other. This system would have a cap of 100% you can freely split between quenching and tampering for downsides and upsides. Normalizing would just be the base for both of these to operate on.
Fogman Posted March 21 Report Posted March 21 I think that a good compromise would be to hold off on quenching and tempering altogether until a simplified version of MKMoose's system can be implemented, where a tool can be quenched and/or tempered, once, in a few different methods that decide the trade-off in durability or power gain, and if done incorrectly should either have no effect, or yield an item with only negative additional effects. The game does provide specific information with regards to the current temperature of work items, and work items which are different colors visibly glow differently, and it makes sense to tie this into a heat treatment system. Work hardening and annealing bronze would be an interesting addition but a point against it is that it doesn't seem like it would be a good introduction to quenching ferrous metals because annealing seems at a glance to mirror the quenching process and has the opposite effect on the metal, softening it and increasing toughness while reducing hardness. I like that but it's counterintuitive and could confuse the player. Either way I think that repeatedly heating and quenching an item for a chance to turn the work item into air is a wholly unreasonable and unwelcome addition.
Erik Posted March 21 Report Posted March 21 16 minutes ago, Fogman said: Anyway, unless you object to merriam-webster's definition of gambling, risking "other stakes", in this case, a tool head in a game (in this case, Vintage Story 1.22), fits the definition of gambling without issue. I agree, that by that definition it is a gambling mechanic. But then we can agree that loads of games, digital and table top, are using gambling mechanics. TTRPGs like Dungeons&Dragons for example, each time you try to hit an enemy you are betting your one action you get each turn on one roll of the dice. I'd even argue that when the stakes are higher, the roll becomes more engaging, triumphs more exhilarating, failures more emotionally devastating, the whole ordeal becomes more fun. Gambling isn't inherently fun but it's not inherently unfun or inherently bad either. I also don't want to defend loot boxes, gatcha mechanics, "KRMMO child gambling mechanics" or casinos. I'd say gambling is inherently addictive to some degree. Preying on peoples money, especially by getting them addicted, is obviously bad. Though I don't worry this will be the case for quenching in VS, as obviously no money is involved and I'd also rate the quenching mechanic to not be very addictive. If you think the current VS quenching mechanic is bad, it's likely not for the same reason you think "KRMMO child gambling mechanics" is bad. That is why I think the comparison to "KRMMO child gambling mechanics" is unwarranted. 56 minutes ago, Fogman said: You misunderstood my comment on a conceptual level. I said that the two people are both attempting to quench each item the same number of times (in this case, 5), not that each person attempts to quench it until it breaks and then the first person has it break on the first quench every time. There is no scenario where in trying to quench an item a person "shatters the tool head 5 times" because that is actually them failing to quench 5 different items. Ah, sorry, took me reading your response and initial experiment a bunch of times to finally understand it. Then lets look at the numbers again: We already calculated the chance to quench a tool head 5 times: the probability to break each quenching were: 5%, 10%, 15%, 20% and the 25% on the last quench. So the chance for it not breaking at each step remains 95% * 90% * 85% * 80% * 75% = 43.605% Person A archives this on the "first try", so loses no tool head and only "risked" that one tool head. The probability of this happening is 43.605%. Person B tries n times (where n is a whole number greater than 0), so he "risked" and lost n tool heads. The probability of losing n tool heads is (1 - 43.605%) ^ n. That means that the likelihood for loosing 5 tool heads is ~5.7% (or ~2.487% if doing a 6th 5-times-quenching attempt that succeeds) That is without tempering, when Person B invests effort to temper after each quench, the likelihood of losing n tool heads decreases further. Too lazy to look into the code for how that effects temp and calculate that stuff, I'd then probably also try to factor in the power loss from quenching, i.e. if 6- or 7-times-quenching would actually be required when doing tempering to archive the same power level... If person A would only ever risk one tool head, he only ever has a 43.605% chance of getting the 5-times-quenched tool head, while person B would have an 1 - (1 - 43.605%) ^ n chance of getting the 5-times-quenched tool head. When risking 5 tools, the chance of getting a 5-time-quenched tool head is therefore ~0,943%. So we can reason, that greater risk means greater chance to get our desired reward. (Risked tool here means that each risked tool head is attempted to be quenched regardless if a previous attempt at getting a 5-time-quenched tool head was already successful. This was done to keep the probabilities of each attempt independent to simplify the math. Thus our calculated probability is for at least one 5-time-quenched tool head, so this could be multiple. The probability to get just one (the first occurrence) 5-time-quenched tool head is therefore even greater.) While the lowest bet for quenching is a tool head, the probabilities for loss also are part of the risk. A 50% chance of loss is riskier than a 5% chance. 1 hour ago, MKMoose said: I can understand simplifications and minor discrepancies, but the order of operations in the current system isn't similar to the realistic process at all. Where to draw the line with realism is obviously subjective. Like I said, the processes of quenching and tempering, not necessarily the results (increasing strength, durability, decreasing shatter chance), are generally realistic (quenching before tempering, quenching being quick cooling from high temperatures, tempering slow cooling from lower temperatures). Normalization I would count as a different process altogether. The most unrealistic part is without a doubt the "repeating for greater rewards" part, but like I said earlier, could just abstractly represent multiple consecutively better attempts at quenching. 1 hour ago, MKMoose said: Repetition may be greatly reduced by just tweaking the numbers, that much I can agree with. But making tempering less effective would make it almost completely useless. It's a matter of hyperoptimization in the best case scenario (quenching for low power or for durability), while for high-power tools tempering is strictly harmful in the current balance. Hmm, tempering reducing shatter chance (allowing for more quenches) while also lowering the effect of previous quenches (necessitating more quenches to archive desired effect level) might be a problem (if that is what you mean with tempering being strictly harmful). 1 hour ago, MKMoose said: Shatter chance and durability increase are effectively the same effect but going different ways, and once the risk outweighs the benefits, it's just fundamentally not worth it. I think it's intended, that there is a point where the risk outweighs the benefits. Otherwise we would either need durability increases increasing with greater shatter chance or both not scaling at all. 1 hour ago, MKMoose said: failure doesn't present any meaningful setback besides wasted time, and retrying is allowed instantly The most meaningful setback/risk is resource loss, i.e. the tool head. I can't think of a more significant (realistic) risk in the scenario of quenching. Reward is obviously more durability or tool power. I can understand not liking it, not thinking it's a good risk-reward mechanic, but I honestly fail to see how this is not a risk-reward mechanic, among the most simple risk-reward mechanics one can think of.
Recommended Posts