Uncompromising survival shouldn't mean unrealistically costly

[runnybabbit]

So this might come across as a strange critique, and it could spill out into all sorts of proposed design mechanics, so I'll just focus on the balancing side for now. That is to say, recipe output.

I think there are a number of points where this game makes certain processes unrealistically costly, in the name of 'wilderness survival', when in reality those processes were traditionally used because they were resource/labor efficent. This mostly sticks out to me in the building material aspects, firstly because traditional timber and earth is what I'm more familiar with IRL, but also because that's where the 'unhistorical costliness' makes the least sense to me, as it's only a peripheral matter of game balance, not directly related to progression.

 

A prime example would be wattle and daub. In the game right now 1 dirt + 1 sand + clay + 2 straw gives enough daub (12) to fully plaster a block. Or plaster 1 and a bit blocks (10 + 2 left over) if you're spreading it. That means 2 blocks and some clay + straw to make one block (admittedly very a pretty one). However, I've done this IRL and it's amazingly cheap. The wicker frame and straw both serve to 'bulk out' the mixture far more than you expect.

Even without taking into account the straw and wicker, given the two blocks of dirt and sand in the recipe I would expect 2 blocks of output since that's what is put in to the recipe, really it would probably be more like 3x current output. 

 

Other examples could be explored like Shingles and Beams.

 

The point is that from a historical standpoint this recipe should go a lot further, that's why it was traditionally used. From a game design standpoint, it would make sense to 'reward' smart approaches with higher resource efficency, rather than making them unrealistically costly.

I also think it would not affect game balance drastically to have cheaper building options where it makes historical sense, as it only indirectly affects other areas of game balance. In this case a output buff would put the blocks more or less on par with mud bricks (which have been done quite well imo).

 

I can think of a couple of other examples where higher outputs would make sense,  but how likely do people think we'll see some recipe rebalances? Where should they be? There are a small number of cases where I could see the argument for keeping it how it is as game balance (such as in the case of hunting yields, or maybe firewood), but this by no means seems to be the majority of cases. 

 

Should 'Uncompromising Wilderness Survival' just be a vibe the game has regardless of historical and traditional methods, or can it allow for productive processes? How does a game design the former so as not to be immersion-breaking for those who have experienced the latter?

 

EDIT: Oops somehow put this in 'Suggestions' and not 'Discussion'. To be clear, I wanted to open up a discussion about game design and the 'meta-issue' around balance and immersion rather than a specific suggestion (though I do offer one).

Edited March 31 by runnybabbit

[Emeal]

You are doing the wrong approach if you think Tyron and crew will examine every process for realism and historical balance right now, game is unbalanced and unfinished. We should know this. Rather if you see something that does not make sense to you make the case for it, both logical and historical then its much easier for Tyron apply some numbers changes.

I know you mean well with the whole consideration of 'Uncompromising survival shouldn't mean unrealistically costly', but I just don't think that is a process that they want to start now.

6 hours ago, runnybabbit said:

A prime example would be wattle and daub. In the game right now 1 dirt + 1 sand + clay + 2 straw gives enough daub (12) to fully plaster a block. Or plaster 1 and a bit blocks (10 + 2 left over) if you're spreading it. That means 2 blocks and some clay + straw to make one block (admittedly very a pretty one). However, I've done this IRL and it's amazingly cheap. The wicker frame and straw both serve to 'bulk out' the mixture far more than you expect.

Even without taking into account the straw and wicker, given the two blocks of dirt and sand in the recipe I would expect 2 blocks of output since that's what is put in to the recipe, really it would probably be more like 3x current output. 

Other examples could be explored like Shingles and Beams.

See this is a great suggestion, something anyone could take a look at and be like yeah I can see it.
If you see some recipe tweaks that are unrealistic you should just go for it and make the case for each of them in turn.

Tyron is watching and if you can make it make sense to him, he's incredibly likely to just pop in and change the numbers for the next patch.
Much more likely than to start a whole examination process of mechanics right now, in the middle of what are we doing right now? Rivers and Sawmills.

[LadyWYT]

11 hours ago, runnybabbit said:

I think there are a number of points where this game makes certain processes unrealistically costly, in the name of 'wilderness survival', when in reality those processes were traditionally used because they were resource/labor efficent. This mostly sticks out to me in the building material aspects, firstly because traditional timber and earth is what I'm more familiar with IRL, but also because that's where the 'unhistorical costliness' makes the least sense to me, as it's only a peripheral matter of game balance, not directly related to progression.

While I somewhat agree, I also look at it as...at the end of the day, Vintage Story is still a videogame, and in some cases the cost for things is probably going to be a little different than what it should for the sake of keeping the gameplay balanced. Now I'm not saying that some things shouldn't maybe be tweaked(I certainly wouldn't mind seeing wattle-and-daub go just a bit farther than it's already been made to go), but I also don't want things to become too easy either. 

Getting two blocks' worth of material for two blocks' worth of input sounds like a pretty change though.

 

4 hours ago, Emeal said:

See this is a great suggestion, something anyone could take a look at and be like yeah I can see it.
If you see some recipe tweaks that are unrealistic you should just go for it and make the case for each of them in turn.

Tyron is watching and if you can make it make sense to him, he's incredibly likely to just pop in and change the numbers for the next patch.

I think this goes for most suggestions in general really, and not just presenting a good argument to Tyron. The better the supporting argument behind a suggestion, the more likely other players are to throw their support behind it. I've seen several suggestions/criticisms that weren't necessarily bad themselves, but the supporting arguments for them were either heavily flawed or nonexistent.

[Heegrim]

Yeah, I always wondered why daub was so expensive. It is actually one of the most annoying building materials to work with because you basically have to go collect everything specifically for it as you almost never have a surplus of the necessary materials (besides dirt).

[runnybabbit]

On 3/31/2026 at 8:16 PM, Emeal said:

You are doing the wrong approach if you think Tyron and crew will examine every process for realism and historical balance right now, game is unbalanced and unfinished.

Oops, yep I think I might have come accross wrong in the unclear way I worded things (wrote this late at night :3). Also as I said I meant to post this in discussions instead of suggestions so that's probably lending to the confusion.

What I was hoping was people would share the parts of the game that they thought could use some attention in being more profitable/efficent. I brought up building material recipe balance because I thought it easily illustrated my point and because it was easy to discuss what a rebalance would look like since it's not in a direct line of progression, like new or more effective armor/tools/resources would be... Though I guess I didn't want to completely exculde discussion of those.

Anyways, I think I was too broad/vauge and ought to repost in Discussions with a narrowed focus a bit.

 

 

On 4/1/2026 at 12:43 AM, LadyWYT said:

While I somewhat agree, I also look at it as...at the end of the day, Vintage Story is still a videogame, and in some cases the cost for things is probably going to be a little different than what it should for the sake of keeping the gameplay balanced.

One of the things I was (unclearly) trying to imply is perhaps some mechanics *should* be - in a way - a little unblanced, within reason.  That is to say, there is more than one way of balancing things. Could we see some things be highly efficent if the ideal situation arises, and instead balance them by how often that situation occurs vs others where different approaches may be better...? Rather than slapping an equal level of busywork on everything? Again, I was probably too optimistic in my ability to convey my intention of having a discussion so broad. 

Edited April 4 by runnybabbit
Edit: words are hard and I needed to fix some

[Thorfinn]

On 3/31/2026 at 8:43 AM, LadyWYT said:

in some cases the cost for things is probably going to be a little different than what it should for the sake of keeping the gameplay balanced.

I'm looking at you, sticks.

[KahvozeinsFang]

On 4/1/2026 at 2:22 PM, Heegrim said:

Yeah, I always wondered why daub was so expensive. It is actually one of the most annoying building materials to work with because you basically have to go collect everything specifically for it as you almost never have a surplus of the necessary materials (besides dirt).

I don't know, I always have multiple crates full of materials to make daub. Even if I never actually make any. The only thing I'd usually have to go out of my way to collect is sand. 

 

Also, I did just make some duab on a server I'm playing on currently. I spent like 2 hours collecting the stuff and made way more than I actually needed. I think I needed like 25 or 30 stacks of daub, and ended up making around 50 or 60

[runnybabbit]

16 hours ago, Thorfinn said:

I'm looking at you, sticks.

On the subject of 'maybe you can balance something by having it unbalanced but kinda rare'... Can I please have a stick forest that's just sticks? Please Devs?

[Thorfinn]

I think I'd just create a new tree (or modify an existing one) to give it a higher proportion of sticks to leaves. I wouldn't play with bushes, though. You kind of need to get through them, sometimes in emergencies.  Other possibilities to relieve some of that would be to reduce the "durability" (I forget what the tag  is called) so you collect them in a single hit, or even make it "collect on right click, like sticks on the ground. (In my server, I've done that with mushrooms. Never made much sense that they are that hard to collect.)

Sticks are not so much unbalanced as they are a little tedious to collect before shears. They are kind of like reeds  or thatch. If you want a thatch roof or an 8x12 skeps apiary, that's a lot of time in stone, but once you hit copper, it's only a few minutes.