Quenching?

[Mac Mcleod]

1 hour ago, SnapJelly said:

Why? just make a new one... it takes 1 minute and I have 10 stacks of iron ore stored

What is the benefit you get from having a tool with 450 more uses at the cost of losing a tool with 3000 to 3500 uses?  
I'm trying to understand where you are coming from.

Edited August 28 by Mac Mcleod
left out the start of the range.

[SnapJelly]

1 hour ago, qualicabyss said:

we don't all have 10 stacks of iron we don't mind wasting for no reason

so let me get this straight:

1) you prospect for iron

2) you find an ultry high or atleast very high source of iron

3) find the iron

4) you leave without taking an abondance of iron, you just grab like 20 chunks and leave?

talk me through the logic here man? Why wouldn't you have access to lots of iron?

[SnapJelly]

12 minutes ago, Mac Mcleod said:

What is the benefit you get from having a tool with 450 more uses at the cost of losing a tool with 3000 to 3500 uses? 

because then I have to worry less about my tool breaking and it recudes the chance of me having to carry a backup tool with me in case it breaks which would waste an extra inventory slot, and also trying out for the extra durability costs me almost nothing so why wouldn't I try?

[dyrran]

12 hours ago, PhotriusPyrelus said:

None of that has anything to do with a no-skill RNG mechanic.

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

Quote

As one of my VS friends said - realism is OK, but too much realism make the game no longer a game, but a real life sim. We dont want that!

Please, dont turn this awesome game into another hard core survival!

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Literary skills are hard, I know. OP refers to how they don't want to turn the game into "another hard core survival". Hence my focus on this being a hardcore game. Hope this helps.

[PhotriusPyrelus]

6 hours ago, dyrran said:

Literary skills are hard, I know. OP refers to how they don't want to turn the game into "another hard core survival". Hence my focus on this being a hardcore game. Hope this helps.

Maybe quote that in your response next time, champ.  The thrust of the complaint is about a blushift no-skill RNG slot machine being added to the game.  But you're right, literary skills are hard.  It's difficult to figure out the thesis from the closing.  I get it, man.

[MKMoose]

21 hours ago, Mac Mcleod said:

Some people say (and I haven't tested it) that they think it's best to go for damage and then if you make it, to do one last quench for durability.

It's a somewhat common idea that I've seen tossed around, and yet it's incorrect. Going for damage first and then finishing with a durability quenching is a net loss, because durability quenching is always a net loss if the total number of iterations, both for power and for durability, exceeds 2.

 

20 hours ago, SnapJelly said:

why would I care about a net loss of steel or coal? I can get mountains of it in like 20 minutes should I run out

As an example, the fourth quenching for durability assuming tempering in-between can provide an 8.3% relative durability buff, and has a 12.7% chance of breaking the tool. You lose metal this way, on top of spending extra time, fuel and fire clay, just for a chance to get a slightly better tool (e.g. for a steel pickaxe it's 3774 => 4086 durability, just 312 more).

And I strongly doubt that having to worry a tiny bit less about your tool breaking is particularly meaningful. It's not like that ~300 extra durability solves some kind of problem - it just makes the problem ~8% less frequent, at best.

While the third or fourth durability quenching is not all that bad, it only gets worse each time - the 6th quenching, for example, provides a ~5.7% relative durability buff at a ~16.4% shatter chance. And remember that this is on top of all the previous material losses.

 

On 8/28/2026 at 3:42 PM, SnapJelly said:

what do you mean ''optimal''? there is no objective optimal amount because the optimal amount of quenches is going to be whatever the amount of quenches is required for the exact amount of power that you want.

Once you get into ~4+ quenchings, a smaller number of iterations with less tempering can end up having greater power (and vice versa), so the optimal number of quenchings is not always straightforward.

But that aside, I was talking about how many times and at which point in the sequence it's optimal to temper for a given number of quenchings, which is not always clear-cut either.

Most of the time, "do whatever, it barely matters anyways" is the most practical answer, though there are still some objective mistakes that people make. This, by the way, is one of the reasons why I find the system poorly designed, because outright removing tempering out of the equation would change almost nothing in terms of the practical results you can achieve, while making the system more intuitive and removing a large portion of the potential for the player to shoot themselves in the foot. And at that point, maybe just redesign the whole thing somewhat to keep tempering relevant.

 

10 hours ago, dyrran said:

Literary skills are hard, I know.

3 hours ago, PhotriusPyrelus said:

Maybe quote that in your response next time, champ.

Alas, the skill of civil discussion is not universal either. Don't escalate this further than you already have.

Edited August 29 by MKMoose

[PhotriusPyrelus]

4 minutes ago, MKMoose said:

Alas, the skill of civil discussion is not universal either.

I give the energy I get.  I do love the peanut gallery wanting to get in on the mud-slinging while pretending they're above it though.  ::thumbsup::

[SnapJelly]

28 minutes ago, MKMoose said:

As an example, the fourth quenching for durability assuming tempering in-between can provide an 8.3% relative durability buff, and has a 12.7% chance of breaking the tool. You lose metal this way,

Sure I get that but I don't understand why I should care about losing metal at all? That's my point here, a single trip to the iron mine and you casually walk out with 10 stacks of ore before nightfall even hits, everyone is so worried about losing marerial but the material you're worried about losing is so unbelievably plentiful and easy to get, all you have to do is walk over and grab it. Once you get past the point of actually finding an iron vein (which you already have in this scenarion cuz we're at the quenching stage) that singular iron vein will grand you litteral mountains of ore, and if you SOMEHOW actually run out of iron in that one mine then it's highly unlikely you can't find another one 500 or so blocks in another direction. There is SO SO much iron in a gameworlds, it is SOOO plentiful, why be concerned about wasting some?

33 minutes ago, MKMoose said:

on top of spending extra time, fuel

Time, sure you do gotta spend time doing it but it's also just time playing the game so, I don't think having to spend more time just playing the game is really a net negative.

Fuel sure you gotta make fuel, but from my personal experience I tend to make charcoal pits that are 5x5x2 blocks, it takes 25 stacks of logs to fill it completely + 1 log to start the firepit, filling this pit takes me less than a day and it'll give me mountains of charcoal. As I said before just chopping down a single 2x2 oak tree will give me enough logs to fill this pit twice and still have logs left over, it's hardly a hurdle.

37 minutes ago, MKMoose said:

and fire clay

Oke I will give you that one. I didn't think about fireclay but you're right, especially if you didn't find any natural spawns it can be very painful to lose even a single piece

[dyrran]

3 hours ago, PhotriusPyrelus said:

Maybe quote that in your response next time, champ.  The thrust of the complaint is about a blushift no-skill RNG slot machine being added to the game.  But you're right, literary skills are hard.  It's difficult to figure out the thesis from the closing.  I get it, man.

Wait.. Let me get this straight.

• I read a post in its entirety.
• I notice a particular complaint about not turning the game into "another hard core survival".
• I respond to that particular complaint, letting the OP know that they're already playing pretty a hard core game.
• You seemingly read just the title, scroll through all the comments, find mine, and reply to it as if you're being spoken to.
• I inform you the OP mentioned having an issue with the game being pushed into a hard core survival game.
• You push the blame of misunderstanding on me because I didn't make it easy for you to digest.

Maybe read the entire post next time, champ. The thrust of the complaint is about a blushift no-skill RNG mechanic that's already in the game. But you're right, literary skills are hard. It's difficult to read more than the title. I get it, man.

 

41 minutes ago, PhotriusPyrelus said:

I give the energy I get.  I do love the peanut gallery wanting to get in on the mud-slinging while pretending they're above it though.  ::thumbsup::

No issue with giving the energy you get. Maybe, though, just maybe, you could also not interject yourself into a conversation and tell me I'm the reason you misunderstood. Could I have made it easier for you? Yeah, absolutely. If we talk in the future I'll do that. Issue is, I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to the author. Hope this helps.

[MKMoose]

On 8/28/2026 at 6:19 PM, dyrran said:

With all due respect OP, the game is already very much hardcore. The process to enter the clay age could take days for a new player, just because the process is actually involved.

I can't quite agree with this, because where you say "hardcore", I see design problems. My experience on the Forums and on the Discord server suggests that the reason new players struggle is overwhelmingly that the game simply doesn't do a great job of introducing its own mechanics and utilizing the player's preexisting associations, to say it lightly.

Let's say that a new player gets through the tutorial and figures out that it might be useful to find clay. Well... what are they supposed to do now? What does clay look like? Where can it be found?

• The game doesn't explain anything - literally just "find and dig up some clay".
• Rivers don't exist, so riverbanks are out of the question.
• You might think to search near water bodies, because that is the obvious way to find clay realistically, but searching at sea level only increases the total spawn rate of clay by ~20% at most, because it only has any impact on blue clay. And even that 20% increase doesn't matter that much, because where there's water, there's less land surface for the clay to spawn.
• If not near water, then one might think that it would be reasonable to search in low-altitude plains and basins which is where clay is naturally more common in real life. It can be more effective, but sometimes can also be detrimental because it's generally more difficult to notice clay when looking from the top, for new players especially.
• You might also think that clay could be more common in forests, as realistically it gets a bit more readily exposed to the surface in forests - but nope, that doesn't work at all, because clay gets completely covered by forest soil in the game so for most purposes it could as well be nonexistent in forests.

The end result? Looking for clay is a game of chance, driven by largely arbitrary, unintuitive mechanics which have very little to do with how clay is realistically found. To me, that's not hardcore - it's just wrong. It would be more reasonably hardcore if the reason for clay being as difficult to find for new players as it is was realism, but that's clearly not the case.

 

On 8/28/2026 at 4:14 PM, LadyWYT said:

But I do think it still matches the three settings you listed here, even on Standard settings, at least somewhat, since respawning in a specific spot isn't a free action, there is no direct walkthrough on how to play the game, and resources can be hit-or-miss.

• Dying has very nearly zero penalties in the early game if you manage to retrieve your items or it can even sometimes be beneficial (primarily in terms of satiety).
• The game offers a basic tutorial and extensive handbook with guides for many mechanics.
• Resources can be hit-or-miss but in terms of actual survival challenge they only provide much of anything before the player establishes a half-decent food supply.

I can absolutely see how it partially ticks the boxes, but I don't think it's nearly close enough to be considered hardcore by that definition.

Even "uncompromising" arguably isn't supported by the actual gameplay mechanics all that well. And frankly, I find that "uncompromising" is an odd word to use in the first place either way, because it's defined as something akin to "inflexible and unwilling to make concessions". If I were to interpret it literally, my first assumption would be limited world customization options and a focus on a specific intended experience - and that clearly doesn't fit VS either. Or it could maybe mean that the game doesn't make accomodations for new players to onboard them onto the experience, which is kind of true and kind of not, but it would also be a pretty odd way to advertise the game.

 

On 8/28/2026 at 4:14 PM, LadyWYT said:

"Hardcore survival", at least to me, tends to actively stack the deck against the player, and doesn't play fair.

I tend to disagree with this rather fundamentally. Truly unfair mechanics are, to me, universally and invariably unfun as well. When a mechanic is considered unfair, it suggests to me that the game does something that it shouldn't do, often for the sake of overwhelming or tricking the player to artificially jack up the difficulty. Or more generally, the game doesn't provide the player with reasonable means to meet its demands. Used in moderation, it can sometimes be an effective storytelling tool or a source of tension in gameplay (my favorite example is the fourth boss of Nine Sols), but in excess it just doesn't make for good games.

Even the most hardcore survival games (as well as soulslikes, or rage games, or other kinds of difficult games) are designed with a level of fairness in mind, because it is really a basic design rule. Hardcore games are naturally difficult and they don't hesitate to throw challenges at the player without giving an easy way out, but good hardcore games make sure that the player has the means to succed.

• Challenge needs to be clear and legible - unfair mechanics are often those which punish the player without giving sufficient information about what is affecting them.
• Mistakes need to be a learning opportunity - unfair mechanics are often those which don't have any clear counterplay or remedy, or don't provide the player with reasonable means to learn of it.
• The player needs to have agency, and good decisions need to result in meaningful benefits - unfair mechanics are often those which punish the player largely irrespective of their actions and decisions.

And this way, I've arrived more or less at your definition of "uncompromising survival". Your definition of "hardcore" is what I would call "hostile" and for most purposes just poor game design.

Hardcore games, as I know them, tend to be primarily those which require great dedication and sustained commitment from the player to build up significant knowledge and skill, rewarding it with relatively slow progress. This maps very intuitively onto games like hardcore MMOs, while in the context of survival games it frequently manifests in the form of high difficulty, permadeath mechanics and no handholding, as that is a very natural fit for the genre and functions almost like a roguelike - play, inevitably die, try again from scratch with newfound experience. But although some people describe VS roughly that way, it is not at all what I personally found VS to be like even though I would immediately label several other survival games I've played as hardcore based on the same definition.

I genuinely can't find any reasonable sense of the word "hardcore" which would allow me to apply it to VS based on my own experience. A lot of it may come down to the fact that descriptors like this often just come down to vibes.

I wouldn't want to get bogged down in definitions, so what I will end at is that the kind of gameplay VS is designed around and whether it's supposed to be difficult or not isn't closely relevant to whether a specific mechanic is tedious, frustrating or unfun, or the opposite of any of these. If we are to discuss quenching, then I don't think that this discussion is particularly productive, and we ought to actually discuss quenching itself as a mechanic. This discussion is, however, an interesting topic in its own right, so if you're interested in that then I would love to hear examples of clearly unfair mechanics in hardcore games.

[SnapJelly]

2 hours ago, MKMoose said:

• The game doesn't explain anything - literally just "find and dig up some clay".
• Rivers don't exist, so riverbanks are out of the question.
• You might think to search near water bodies, because that is the obvious way to find clay realistically, but searching at sea level only increases the total spawn rate of clay by ~20% at most, because it only has any impact on blue clay. And even that 20% increase doesn't matter that much, because where there's water, there's less land surface for the clay to spawn.
• If not near water, then one might think that it would be reasonable to search in low-altitude plains and basins which is where clay is naturally more common in real life. It can be more effective, but sometimes can also be detrimental because it's generally more difficult to notice clay when looking from the top, for new players especially.
• You might also think that clay could be more common in forests, as realistically it gets a bit more readily exposed to the surface in forests - but nope, that doesn't work at all, because clay gets completely covered by forest soil in the game so for most purposes it could as well be nonexistent in forests.

The end result? Looking for clay is a game of chance, driven by largely arbitrary, unintuitive mechanics which have very little to do with how clay is realistically found.

These are fair criticisms but I wonder what effect this in actuality has on the gameplay though, this might just be personal but I never ever played this game and thought to myself: ''oh I can't find clay, let me go look for water or a basin or something cuz irl that's where clay is'' I just casually explore around the area I decide to settle in and at some point bump into clay.

Yes it is technically possible for no clay to be very close to you at any point but you need clay so early in game it is highly unlikely you'd be at a point where your base is so large you couldn't just pick up all your stuff and move 400 blocks in some direction to be closer to clay if you so please.

There's other things in game that are really rng dependent and you really just have to get lucky to bump into it at some point but I don't think clay is a good example, unless you're in a desert clay will likely be closeby

[williams_482]

The thing with clay is that new players struggle to see it because they don't know what it looks like. They will commonly walk right over clay deposits without recognizing them, and get frustrated. The challenge becomes how to show a new player what clay looks like in the wild, without just handing them some on world spawn, or loudly telegraphing the location of all clay deposits with particles. 

[MKMoose]

2 hours ago, SnapJelly said:

These are fair criticisms but I wonder what effect this in actuality has on the gameplay though, this might just be personal but I never ever played this game and thought to myself: ''oh I can't find clay, let me go look for water or a basin or something cuz irl that's where clay is'' I just casually explore around the area I decide to settle in and at some point bump into clay.

Yes it is technically possible for no clay to be very close to you at any point but you need clay so early in game it is highly unlikely you'd be at a point where your base is so large you couldn't just pick up all your stuff and move 400 blocks in some direction to be closer to clay if you so please.

There's other things in game that are really rng dependent and you really just have to get lucky to bump into it at some point but I don't think clay is a good example, unless you're in a desert clay will likely be closeby

The general idea that the game is realistic and using real-world knowledge is necessary to learn is not abundantly common in the community, but it doesn't seem too rare either. Personally, I think that it would be beneficial for the game to lean into it in certain areas, mainly just because utilizing players' preexisting knowledge can help tremendously to familiarize them with the game.

So while I don't think too many players are confused or misled or whatnot because they're trying to apply real-world logic where it doesn't work, I do think that creating that association would be very beneficial for the game. If clay spawned in a more focused and reasonably realistic way - primarily near water, though naturally there is a lot of nuance - then searching for it could be much more satisfying and learnable. Tell a new player "you need to just run around until you come across a side of dirt with a red tint" - that's kind of boring and disappointing. Tell a new player "find a river or another water body and inspect its banks for clay" - that makes intuitive sense and is much more actionable.

Additionally, on the point of learnability - if a player comes across a clay blob on the side of a hill as it is currently implemented, what are they supposed to conclude? But if a player comes across a large amount of clay next to a river or on a riverbank, that will easily impart a natural association between water and clay.

Importantly, searching for water first is also a great intermediate goal. Instead of the resource being the sole endpoint and the method to find it being nebulous, it is generally preferable to create multiple more approachable individual steps. Having to find water first would be a concrete and well-defined goal, then searching nearby for clay would be separate, much more focused task.

I do want to also note that realistically, sources of clay are naturally much more complex than just water bodies. Weathered rock formations (that's how kaolin forms), colluvial deposits, coastal plains, bedrock (claystone and shale can be clay-rich), sometimes volcanic regions. Water bodies are just a very simple and easy-to-implement association which would also be easy to teach to a new player.

 

1 hour ago, williams_482 said:

The thing with clay is that new players struggle to see it because they don't know what it looks like. They will commonly walk right over clay deposits without recognizing them, and get frustrated. The challenge becomes how to show a new player what clay looks like in the wild, without just handing them some on world spawn, or loudly telegraphing the location of all clay deposits with particles. 

While that's largely true, it doesn't quite point at the the underlying problem, I think. The issue, as far as I can tell, is largely that people struggle to see it because they don't know to expect it. Looking for clay all over the world in't very specific, whereas limiting the search area to rivers and lakes would let people focus their attention much better where it matters and have much greater chances at noticing differences between different soil types.

As a side note, another potential way to make finding clay more intuitive may be something akin to indicator plants. Different plants prefer different types of soil, so it would stand to reason that some plants which generate primarily if not only on clay could be added.

Edited August 30 by MKMoose

[SnapJelly]

5 minutes ago, MKMoose said:

Tell a new player "find a river or another water body and inspect its banks for clay" - that makes intuitive sense and is much more actionable

Ah yeah that does make a lot of sense, I am also now realising that the first time I played this game I happened to come across clay very early and quite literally next to my house so I immediately knew what it looked like and never really had that step where I am just mindlessly looking for something that idk where to get.

 

7 minutes ago, MKMoose said:

another potential way to make finding clay more intuitive may be something akin to indicator plants. Different plants prefer different types of soil, so it would stand to reason that some plants which generate primarily if not only on clay could be added.

I think that would be EXTREMELY COOL but I don't think that would solve much of the issue, I doubt many people would already have preexisting knowledge of which plants prefer clay so it would just be another thing you gotta read in the handbook to learn and is only really benefitial to older players who will likely not struggle much finding clay to begin with

[dyrran]

6 hours ago, MKMoose said:

Let's say that a new player gets through the tutorial and figures out that it might be useful to find clay. Well... what are they supposed to do now? What does clay look like? Where can it be found?

• The game doesn't explain anything - literally just "find and dig up some clay".
• Rivers don't exist, so riverbanks are out of the question.
• You might think to search near water bodies, because that is the obvious way to find clay realistically, but searching at sea level only increases the total spawn rate of clay by ~20% at most, because it only has any impact on blue clay. And even that 20% increase doesn't matter that much, because where there's water, there's less land surface for the clay to spawn.
• If not near water, then one might think that it would be reasonable to search in low-altitude plains and basins which is where clay is naturally more common in real life. It can be more effective, but sometimes can also be detrimental because it's generally more difficult to notice clay when looking from the top, for new players especially.
• You might also think that clay could be more common in forests, as realistically it gets a bit more readily exposed to the surface in forests - but nope, that doesn't work at all, because clay gets completely covered by forest soil in the game so for most purposes it could as well be nonexistent in forests.

The end result? Looking for clay is a game of chance, driven by largely arbitrary, unintuitive mechanics which have very little to do with how clay is realistically found. To me, that's not hardcore - it's just wrong. It would be more reasonably hardcore if the reason for clay being as difficult to find for new players as it is was realism, but that's clearly not the case.

I respect the input and explanation. I still disagree, though. I think the game intentionally teeters a line of hardcore, and accessible. Is clay hard to find? Yes, to a new player. It shouldn't be easy for a new player. You seemingly agree with that as well. 

6 hours ago, MKMoose said:

Hardcore games, as I know them, tend to be primarily those which require great dedication and sustained commitment from the player to build up significant knowledge and skill, rewarding it with relatively slow progress.

The skill is learning to spot the clay. It manifests through its red/blue/sand colored spots in the dirt. Once you learn how to spot that at a distance, or in your peripheral, you fundamentally level up as a player. That is a manner of skill expression in itself. Not a flashy one, but it is skill expression none-the-less that separates veterans from newcomers none-the-less. I don't believe that understanding the real world and being able to apply that to a video game is what makes it hardcore. I do agree that I'd like for it to be more realistic. As someone from south appalachia, I'd love it if I could hunt for clay how I would on say a camping trip. 

Rambling aside, I think it's fine for new players to be confused. That's a normal feeling to have in a game that is hardcore. A game that will punish you, and not ask for forgiveness. A game that won't necessarily teach you how to defend yourself. A game that puts you in the sandbox to experience and learn from struggling is a game that is hardcore to me. I used to play DayZ for days at a time. I remember spawning in for the first time. Didn't know how to read a map, didn't know how to build a base, didn't know how to eat certain foods, didn't know how to build a base. It was very confusing, and felt unintuitive. The issue wasn't the game, the issue was I didn't know yet. I had to experience and game and learn from mistakes. 

Admittedly, DayZ and VS are apples and space-potatoes. I don't plan on comparing directly. The point lies at the struggle to gain information, with a lack of information, and a lack of a hand to hold. I think that makes them both pretty hardcore in their respective ways. I could be totally overlooking something or it could just be a matter of disagreeing. I'm just happy to be here. 

I do wish that VS had a base thirst, more expansive body-heat, and disease system. I'm sure that will come in time though. 

[SnapJelly]

24 minutes ago, dyrran said:

Is clay hard to find? Yes, to a new player. It shouldn't be easy for a new player. You seemingly agree with that as well. 

Well not really, it's literally on the floor exposed to the air. you can spot it from a distance and you just walk over and pick it up, it's quite easy i'd say

 

25 minutes ago, dyrran said:

The skill is learning to spot the clay. It manifests through its red/blue/sand colored spots in the dirt. Once you learn how to spot that at a distance, or in your peripheral, you fundamentally level up as a player.

I really think this is exaggerating it a bit man, you can spot different looking blocks right away, it does't take any skill. Yea sure if you don't know what clay looks like yet then you won't know right away that the different looking block is clay but walking up to it to have a closer look takes 1 second and is quite literally what every single person would do right away upon finding a new block, you check what it is. And I'm also pretty sure you can just see what it looks like in the handbook.

 

28 minutes ago, dyrran said:

It was very confusing, and felt unintuitive. The issue wasn't the game, the issue was I didn't know yet. I had to experience and game and learn from mistakes. 

But vintage story gives you a handbook that tells you exactly how to do everything exactly so that you won't have that experience

[dyrran]

10 hours ago, SnapJelly said:

Well not really, it's literally on the floor exposed to the air. you can spot it from a distance and you just walk over and pick it up, it's quite easy i'd say

 

I really think this is exaggerating it a bit man, you can spot different looking blocks right away, it does't take any skill. Yea sure if you don't know what clay looks like yet then you won't know right away that the different looking block is clay but walking up to it to have a closer look takes 1 second and is quite literally what every single person would do right away upon finding a new block, you check what it is. And I'm also pretty sure you can just see what it looks like in the handbook.

You can spot different blocks right away because you've seen them a lot. You're projecting "the obvious" and "common sense" because of what you already know. There's so many players that don't have the same skill, though. People on the server I play, they walk over high-fertility soil constantly. Always asking for new spots to find some but never realize they're walking over it or right by it. They haven't paid enough attention to spot the differences.

 

10 hours ago, SnapJelly said:

But vintage story gives you a handbook that tells you exactly how to do everything exactly so that you won't have that experience

The experience is inevitable because of the nature of the game. My gf won't play on our server that we have easy mode mods on because she thinks the game is too difficult. I've given her every tip and more but she just thinks the game is too hard. I know myself and friends thought the game was much harder when we first started because we didn't understand everything at first. Other people where I work that tried it said similar things. It's just a hard game that takes a little time to wrangle, man. 

[SnapJelly]

9 hours ago, dyrran said:

You can spot different blocks right away because you've seen them a lot. You're projecting "the obvious" and "common sense" because of what you already know.

Not really man, I spotted the differenct cuz it looks like a different block, high fert soil is harder to distinguish from medium fert cuz it's the same block with a different shade but clay just looks like something else

[dyrran]

4 hours ago, SnapJelly said:

Not really man, I spotted the differenct cuz it looks like a different block, high fert soil is harder to distinguish from medium fert cuz it's the same block with a different shade but clay just looks like something else

We'll just have to agree to disagree.