Rainbow Fresh Posted Wednesday at 07:42 AM Report Posted Wednesday at 07:42 AM *cue "booingAudience.wav"* Yep. Me again. This old topic again which has been heatedly argued about a million times in other topics. And yes, I literally just came here and made this from this other thread - as of time of writing - right down below this one. And yes, the name is deliberately chosen to both be meant literally, and simultaneously be the name of that one mod the contra half of us are probably using right now to remove the underlying "issue" feature. Clearly, there are opinions on this matter and arguments to be had for both sides. Though through all this bickering back and forth I came to realize that apparently noone ever made a dedicated suggestion on how to properly solve this issue. So here I am, trying to do my part. First off, to understand why I think my later proposed solution is a good idea, we need to understand why many people think the current "offhand penalty" system... well, isn't. This boils down to a couple key points: It is functionally obsolete Much like drifters throwing rocks, the impacts on "difficulty" can vary in perception but at the core of it the fact remains that the idea behind both features is flawed. There is no, or no longer any, need for them. The biggest counter-arguments for why the offhand hunger penalty is a good feature primarily come down to "If we don't publicly execute users of the forbidden hand we just get Minecraft 2.0" Yes, I can see why that is a concern. As a decade long Minecraft player myself, the offhand is just free inventory real estate, despite having basically no off-hand specific interactions outside of the "I am invincible now" shield. Hell, torches don't even work in-hand without mods over there. The offhand slot has even gone as far as break Minecraft's official April Fools "One Block At A Time" update, a gimmick whereas you were supposed to only ever be able to hold any one singular thing at a time but the devs forgot to remove the offhand. And Yes, I can also see how these concerns apply even moreso to Vintage Story seeing as this is a challenging game, and inventory management is part of that challenge. It takes till the end-game's highest tier of equipment to get the same inventory size as Day 1 Steve. It takes significantly more time and resources to build a basement full of trunks to store "everything in the game", especially since VS's assortment of clutter adds alot of unique, unstackable items people want to collect at some point. However. I do want to, once more, point out that there are only about 5 items that can go in the offhand in the first place. A light source, a shield, a hammer, a pair of tongs and a stick/grunting stick. 3 of these items are things you have no business carrying around with you everywhere, and as such gain nothing from holding in your offhand. On the other hand, 4 out of 5 of these items only work (or have specific, mandatory offhand use) when held in the offhand: The shield, the hammer (for chiseling), the tongs (for anything beyond the age of pottery) and the stick/grunting stick (for reasonably early-game entry to fishing). The allegations that getting rid of an arbitrary 20% extra hunger for using the "forbidden hand" brings us right back to Minecraft don't really hold much water when you consider there is about 2 useful offhand items versus 3 more you HAVE to use the offhand for. If there are more offhand-enabled items I forgot they can surely safely be added to the "no need to use much to begin with" category and do not counter this point. It is mechanically annoying The reason people are complaining about things is, atleast in this case, not because it is "too hard" and they want the game to be "washed down to their skill level". It is because things are just inherently unfun for their enjoyment of the video game. "Challenging" and "annoyingly tedious" walk a very fine line, and most challenges can turn into tedium real quick if they go nowhere. And Vintage Story already has a challenge turned tedium, as realistic of a mechanic as it might be: Food. Vintage Story's challenge as a survival game boils down to death, and the penalties occuring with it. Such is the staple and mostly unavoidable. Fall damage kills you, fire damage kills you, wild animals kill you, monsters kill you, freezing kills, eating the wrong mushroom kills you and finally, hunger eventually kills you. As such, the secondary factor giving a permanent challenge is hunger - the one factor you never overcome in order to have something forcing you to keep trying forever. Existing drains hunger. Sprinting (and jumping?) drains more hunger, freezing drains more hunger, healing drains more hunger, wearing armor drains more hunger and, of course, using the forbidden hand drains more hunger. The challenge of everything being about food can become quite annoying, especially because of balancing "issues" I'll cover in the next section - but the problem arises from the fact that all of these things can be reasonably countered or mostly avoided, except for the odd one out: The forbidden hand. Freezing can be avoided by wearing warm clothes and taking breaks at a fire. Armor penalty is avoided by only using armor when necessary. Sprinting is optional and can be reserved as an emergency counter. Healing can be replaced by chugging bandages. Butthe offhand penalty? Will reliably occur everytime you want to chisel, gather worms or transfer hot items during smithing. And the only "counter" to avoid it is to just... not interact with those mechanics. That is annoying because forfeiting 2/3 of the game just to not use the off-hand is not feasable. It is barking up at the wrong tree Imposing a 20% flat hunger rate is an active penalty. A deliberate choice to impose on this mechanic specifically. When there is seemingly no reason to do that. Which comes with it's own problemativ implications. For starters, the aforementioned balancing "issues" around hunger, which don't help any hunger penalty-based mechanic: In the early game, starvation is a genuine issue. An intended and "realistic" part of wilderness survival starting from nothing at all. In the late-game - you couldn't eat all that food before it rots even if you wanted to. Hunger-based mechanics lose their meaning and just fuel the incresing tedium of having to eat every 5 minutes. So all the hunger penalty for off-hand use does is punish already struggling beginner players even more, while becoming all the more pointless later down the line. Not a good mechanic. Furthermore, active penalization is sending a deliberate message: You are not supposed to do that unless you absolutely have to. Armor works that way. You are not supposed to wear it 24/7 like comfy PJs. It's several dozen KGs of solid metal you are wearing, after all. Wear it when necessary only. The off-hand penalty though? If it you want to penalize the "ease" of wielding a light source AND a tool/weapon, I'll get to that in a second. Much like the shield. But actively telling the player "You are not supposed to chisel, smith or fish"? Well might as well remove those features then. Which removes 2/3 of the game. The pottery age becomes the crux of progress. We can go back to 1.21 re fishing. And chiseling doesn't exist - for all the Minecraft 2.0 allegations, at that point I can just as well go back to that game. As has been suggested plenty before, just balancing different severities of penalty around WHAT item you hold would go a long way to counter this, but flat out 20% no matter if a 100% damage reduction solid steel shield or a literal stick for catching worms? Not a good choice. Then there is the things that this penalty is, probably, trying to counter-balance. The two remaining items on the off-hand-enabled list I also mentioned above: The lightsource and the shield. I do agree that just freely having a permanent light with you is a little bit overpowered for the vibe VS goes for. And that having free damage reduction from a shield is a big imbalance as well. But everytime this gets brought up as an argument for why the offhand penalty as it is right now is great and needs to stay, I always want to ask: Have you considered that's not the problem of your left hand to solve? The shield is a strong item. It's not the fault nor the respnsibility to fix of your left hand that happens to hold the shield. Penalize the shield, not the bearer. Treat the shield like armor, cause it effectively is: Penalty for using the shield, no matter what hand it's in. Balance it like armor so it give stronger penalties for heavy shields and less for a light crude shield. Remove passive block if necessary. A delay for blocking. There are options that don't require "You are using your left hand? I cast famine upon thee!". Same for light sources, even though I don't think they need any big special treatment to begin with. Even if you run around at night with a lantern living rent-free in your off-hand, you will still fall into pits of hell you didn't react fast enough to, you will still be ambushed by bears, wolves or monsters sneaking in from the shadows just beyond your light's range. But that's a different topic. If you think light sources are OP, punish THEM, not the hand holding them. With that now said, let's move on from all the complaining and move to the constructive part of this criticism: The proposed solution. The concept is simple in nature, albeit harder in implementation than just removing the feature outright or putting different values for different off-hand items; even though those options would, for many, be just as appreciated. Not, my proposed solution is remove the offhand penalty, without actually removing it. I.e. moving away from an active, perceived penalty tied to the action of "I put an item into my off-hand and that's bad" to a passive penalty system that naturally, and logically, arises from the world. I am proposing the implementation of a simple two-handed system. Have you ever seen a real-life pickaxe? A real-life coal miner swinging it? If so, chances are high that what you saw wasn't some buff guy leisurely swinging the thing around in one hand, but rather using both his arms to really put force into the swing. After all, it takes alot of energy to break solid rock and as such pickaxes are usually designed as two-handed use tools. Now apply the same to Vintage Story. Define certain tools and weapons as "two-handed". Simple enough tag/JSON value system. These tools/weapons now simply get their stats cut - maybe in half, atleast by a third? - when you don't have your off-hand free. Seeing as two-handed items would perform much worse when only used one-handed because your other hand is pre-occupied. Mining rocks while holding a light takes significantly longer now, incentivising you to put that torch down instead of holding it. Fighting with a shield or torch out becomes much less effective when using long, two-handed weapons like the spear (and maybe falx? We would certainly need new weapons to balance this mechanic), making you ask the question what is more important to you: Killing faster with less durability use or living longer when getting potentially hit yourself. Incentivising NOT using the offhand more than necessary, not penalizing USING the off-hand at all, and without having just yet another system tied to "more hunger". Of course, I am still in favor of applying the previously mentioned debuffs to the shield itself aswell, because it is for all effects and purposes an additional piece of armor. With this ground work done, the system could be expanded in the future to really utilize two-handed usage. Maybe block off-hand when using something that forcibly requires both hands. It's a foundation. To round this off, here is a quickfire round of honorable mentions of additional arguments I have heard regarding the current off-hand penalty system and/or its removal. Implementing minor features takes time away from cool new content So do bug fixes. So do internal refactoring and other things the developers come up with themselves. 1.23 may bring us the cool and highly anticipated armor rework (if it gets done in time), yet 1.23 itself is already officially delayed by the fact we were promised a fixed larger bellows and more variety for procedural dungeons later down the 1.22.x timeline. Seeing as this argument was brought up last in regards to a simple toggle in the world config for the existing mechanic to be turned off, this holds little weight - implementing a toggle for an existing mechanic would be the least problematic thing; and I don't need to know VS's source code for that. It would be a much better approach to atleast refactor the mechanic to be easily modable, which is in-line with the official roadmap goals of refactoring all code of the game into a better coding pattern (nullable wrappers for all things). If something is hard-coded so deeply you need to do disassembly surgery do edit it, it's coded badly. Especially for a game focusing on extensive, easy, official modability. There is no point in implementing a crutch for a tiny fraction of players I would personally say the amount of times complaints about this very mechanic have come up before and the amount of mods in the past trying to change or remove it shows there is decent interest. Regardless, as my proposed solution is a greater feature foundation that can be used for other cool things in the future I think this point no longer is valid. I don't want the game to be constantly watered down in difficulty just like Minecraft Which is why I proposed an alternate way to balance/penalize off-hand use rather then remove it, which is what I am currently doing with mods as there is no better alternative. This is better suited for a mod Maybe, even though I think proper treatment of the fact you have two arms would suit and benefit the base-game as a whole. And even if this is better suited as a mod, the fact still stands the current implementation of this mechanic is so badly hardcoded and obscured that it is barely modable. A refactor to make it modable, if not natively configurable, would be needed anyway. The current system incentivises cooperation That is a unique way to look at it, atleast for the discussion around balancing light sources. And I do agree that this is kinda true. However, Vintage Story is a game with an as heavy focus on singleplayer as it does on multiplayer. Class-locked recipes incentivise cooperation, yet you can officially turn it off so you don't get locked out of things in singleplayer. Atleast the previously proposed toggle of the offhand penalty would fall literally into same category. If not catering to a broader, less skilled audience that needs an "easier game" to buy it as feared before, it would certainly treat the current audience consistently. It is realistic that you expend more body energy when constantly holding with your non-dominant arm I mean, that is true. But then the same consistent logic would need to apply to holding heavy tools with your dominant arm all day long (having any item in your active hotbar slot), or carrying around several dozen if not hundreds of metric tons of raw materials somehow squeezed into your 4 normal-sizted backpacks you are somehow all wearing simultaneously. If we want to follow this logical reasoning for features, a lot of other stuff would need to be revisited instead. I think dealing with this particular issue is the easier option. 9 1
Bruno Willis Posted Wednesday at 10:41 AM Report Posted Wednesday at 10:41 AM Hey, this is obviously a big deal to a lot of people, but I really don't get it. As soon as I get my farm going, increased hunger becomes a good thing (so that I can balance nutrition faster). A little extra hunger for carrying a torch is not a penalty, unless you're running close to starving all the time. And that's just poor planning. What would be a big penalty though is halving mining speed or weapon damage. 2 hours ago, Rainbow Fresh said: "Challenging" and "annoyingly tedious" walk a very fine line, and most challenges can turn into tedium real quick if they go nowhere. I think this applies to this alternative system, moreso than the current one. There's a very well established way to mitigate added hunger: grow more food, hunt more, farm more. Normal gameplay loops. You're already going to do those things, so doing a little more doesn't have any impact. Mitigating halved mining speed or weapon damage is not possible. You'd have to completely forgo the off-hand torch, almost all the time, and go around placing and breaking torches, flickering between pitch black and bright torchlight as you cycle between axe and torches. That sounds really tedious to me. I do appreciate that you're looking for alternatives rather than just complaining, and I think there's totally a good realistic reason that we shouldn't be able to swing a pick while wielding a burning torch, but I think it helps the game that we can do it. Mining would be so much more frustrating if I had to keep my off-hand free. A little extra hunger is just not a big deal. Much less efficient mining is so significant that I don't think anyone would be using their off-hand while mining anymore. You'd have the same issue, just much worse. If you're worried about the extra food you eat while holding something in your off-hand, you're just not growing enough. Make a bigger garden. 4
Rainbow Fresh Posted Wednesday at 11:10 AM Author Report Posted Wednesday at 11:10 AM 16 minutes ago, Bruno Willis said: I do appreciate that you're looking for alternatives rather than just complaining, and I think there's totally a good realistic reason that we shouldn't be able to swing a pick while wielding a burning torch, but I think it helps the game that we can do it. Mining would be so much more frustrating if I had to keep my off-hand free. A little extra hunger is just not a big deal. Much less efficient mining is so significant that I don't think anyone would be using their off-hand while mining anymore. You'd have the same issue, just much worse. Considering that people can have very strong an fragile opinions to heated discussions topics, like this one seems to be, I really hope you don't take offense when I say this - but your way of reasoning is very much in line with "Might as well get rid of it entirely". Which goes to highlight how delicate a topic and split the opinions on this are, and how a completely different system alltogether could actually help resolve this, if only a little. What you are saying boils down to "Eating more food is nothing, a real otherwise notable penalty is actually limiting." Considering that the decision to put an active penalty on a system, as the current hunger penalty is, is done to actively hinder/discourage use of a system not intended to be used alot actually giving you a reason to not hold a torch while mining or fighting with a two-handed weapon would actually much more achieve this original vision; while still, in my opinion, being more palatable to the player. I feel more people would be able to logically agree with "this is a two-handed weapon/tool, you have your other hand full, so you won't be able to use it effectively" rather than "you are using your left hand. You now drop your hunger bar faster." As it natively makes more sense, even compared to other systems interacting with it. Yes, following a realistic hardcore vision for the game using both your hands to carry different things is more draining than just holding one thing in one hand (both hands), but as mentioned in the quickfire section that would require, if seen through to the end, to put alot more penalties and debuffs on every aspect of your inventory and is therefor less approachable. Following your logic of "If the hunger penalty is a problem just grow more food" you are essentially dismissing that this penalty has any meaning to begin with, in which case we could just go and remove it after all to have the same effect. In my opinion, as stated in the opening post, basing everything on hunger alone is a boring mechanic (especially since, as you said, food quickly becomes a non-issue) and currently just further scews to imbalance between the early struggles (adding more starvation pressure on a beginner player/limiting his options to do things in order to not starve) while becoming entirely meaningless later down the line. My proposed alternative keeps the original penalty vision that discourages excessive off-hand use, in only the situations that matter for balancing purposes (at home you don't have to care 99% of the time), while affecting beginners and veterans alike. It keeps, if not better reflects, the limit people hope to see in this system in the first place. 2
Demoncyborg Posted Wednesday at 12:40 PM Report Posted Wednesday at 12:40 PM (edited) i don't think what bruno's saying is 'eating food is nothing'. the meaning of the penalty is the same as the meaning for a lot of the other things in this game, once you have a home base set up, things get easier, and more complex. you can now afford to be hungrier with your shelter and farm. i won't lie it's a little under-baked, but so are all the other survival features at the moment. i think it's something that'll eventually see a touch up, maybe with the potentially incoming status effects update. I also do not like the suggested penalties of slower mining/less damage, my personal fix (but i don't see it needing fixed at the moment) would be an adjustment of these items rather than a change. I'd add multiple hunger %'s to the common off-hands instead, with torches having the lowest penalty, and the un-snuffable lantern being higher (probably just the current rate) as it's heavier and more valuable. It's similar to how heavier armor is more 'expensive' to wear. edit: i did just think about this a bit more in the context of armor, without a hunger penalty there's very little reason to not always wear a shield too. they should probably have the highest 'penalty' out of all of them Edited Wednesday at 12:48 PM by Demoncyborg 1
Rainbow Fresh Posted Wednesday at 12:59 PM Author Report Posted Wednesday at 12:59 PM 10 minutes ago, Demoncyborg said: I'd add multiple hunger %'s to the common off-hands instead, with torches having the lowest penalty, and the un-snuffable lantern being higher (probably just the current rate) as it's heavier and more valuable. It's similar to how heavier armor is more 'expensive' to wear. This is exactly what I already brought up in previous threads about this mechanic. But people seemed to be equally unhappy to change the status quo because "hunger doesn't matter later in the game" and changing this barely notable stat change would mean the game got easier. Hence me, this time, proposing something that equally affects everyone, for a reason that makes notably more sense, and also specifically tailors this penalty to the two situations where it matters. Getting penalized for using the hammer for chiseling or the tongs for smithing is just plain stupid. Cause there is no alternative, the game literally forces you to do the latter to progress. Instead now, the penalty only kicks in primarily when you are in dark areas or otherwise heavily armored (with shield) and do stuff. Much like the armor you mentioned. As I said, I too agree the shield should just be treated like armor, because it is for all intents and purposes. Using the shield, no matter how, no matter what hand (can shields even be used in the main hand?) should give you armor levels of debuffs. The price you pay for safety. But with some variety in one and two-handed weapons, the choice of equipment now matters more. Trying to use the biggest weapon for the highest damage with a thick shield won't work so well anymore. Either big defense or big damage, not both. Lighting up the cave with one hand while fighting off creepy crawlies with the other is also now a matter of choice. Mining with a torch in hand heavily disincentivised so you'd rather put down your light and focus on mining. By extent, incentivising proper preparations for mining trips in caves lest you get surprised by a monster and need to run leaving your light behind. I'm not saying my solution is perfect, just that it's an alternative approach to solve an issue the old system doesn't do a good job in solving with while trying to accomodate for the complaints of both sides.
Demoncyborg Posted Wednesday at 01:41 PM Report Posted Wednesday at 01:41 PM 28 minutes ago, Rainbow Fresh said: This is exactly what I already brought up in previous threads about this mechanic. But people seemed to be equally unhappy to change the status quo because "hunger doesn't matter later in the game" and changing this barely notable stat change would mean the game got easier. Hence me, this time, proposing something that equally affects everyone, for a reason that makes notably more sense, and also specifically tailors this penalty to the two situations where it matters. Getting penalized for using the hammer for chiseling or the tongs for smithing is just plain stupid. Cause there is no alternative, the game literally forces you to do the latter to progress. I dunno! the more i remember about what items you use daily in the offhand, the more I personally feel like the blanket 20% makes total sense haha. Yes you're forced to use these tools for strenuous activities and yes they increase hunger. if you forget to take them off and get hungry it's no different than forgetting to remove armor. now all i'm thinking is that the shield should add on another few %'s to your armor penalties total when out lol. I think my personal opinion is that hunger does matter during all points of the game, even in late game, and its maybe understated in those responses. the current 20% seems to be intentionally in place to increase the hunger drain from strenuous activities like chiseling blacksmithing and cave activities, because even just clicking left and right mouse also increases your hunger drain. It's probably a lot more ingrained into the overall balance of hunger in general because of just how much it is currently used for daily life. I personally can't come up with a change or re-do of the system without needing a counterbalance on the hunger system too, but that's also because I think the current hunger drain is fine and seems intentional for the overall balance of hunger at the moment. 4
Rainbow Fresh Posted Wednesday at 01:49 PM Author Report Posted Wednesday at 01:49 PM 6 minutes ago, Demoncyborg said: because even just clicking left and right mouse also increases your hunger drain. ...it... does?
Demoncyborg Posted Wednesday at 01:54 PM Report Posted Wednesday at 01:54 PM 3 minutes ago, Rainbow Fresh said: ...it... does? uhuh! if you're standing still your hunger rate goes down, but if you're standing still and clicking and whatnot, it doesn't. so if you're smithin'... or chiselin'...
Rainbow Fresh Posted Wednesday at 03:04 PM Author Report Posted Wednesday at 03:04 PM 1 hour ago, Demoncyborg said: uhuh! if you're standing still your hunger rate goes down, but if you're standing still and clicking and whatnot, it doesn't. so if you're smithin'... or chiselin'... Phew, for a moment there I thought you literally lose satiety with every single click. But this sounds reasonable enough. 1
LadyWYT Posted Wednesday at 03:40 PM Report Posted Wednesday at 03:40 PM 2 hours ago, Rainbow Fresh said: But people seemed to be equally unhappy to change the status quo because "hunger doesn't matter later in the game" and changing this barely notable stat change would mean the game got easier. I wouldn't say it's "barely notable" if players are intent on complaining about its existence--that would suggest that the feature is notable enough to produce a reaction. 1 hour ago, Demoncyborg said: the more i remember about what items you use daily in the offhand, the more I personally feel like the blanket 20% makes total sense haha. Yes you're forced to use these tools for strenuous activities and yes they increase hunger. if you forget to take them off and get hungry it's no different than forgetting to remove armor. now all i'm thinking is that the shield should add on another few %'s to your armor penalties total when out lol. I think my personal opinion is that hunger does matter during all points of the game, even in late game, and its maybe understated in those responses. the current 20% seems to be intentionally in place to increase the hunger drain from strenuous activities like chiseling blacksmithing and cave activities, because even just clicking left and right mouse also increases your hunger drain. It's probably a lot more ingrained into the overall balance of hunger in general because of just how much it is currently used for daily life. Pretty much. Some players don't like it, and that's fair, but an extra 20% hunger is...really not much. Blackguard gets penalized more just by default, and letting the player run around with a free utility slot doesn't quite seem in the spirit of VS. It'd be one thing if the player were just fastening a lantern to their belt or helmet and having a light source that way, but the off-hand is used for more than just lighting. Equipping a shield should be a conscious choice the player makes for situations that warrant it, not something they just wear all the time so they can be lax about paying attention to surroundings. Likewise, forging and chiseling are both rather demanding on energy, realistically, so boosting hunger rate while the player does these activities seems fair. As far as the late game, I know we veterans like to say "hunger doesn't matter in the late game because food is so plentiful" argument a lot, and to an extent it's true. However, players who get a little lax about their food supply can quickly find themselves in a bind and need to drop whatever plans they had to acquire more food lest they starve. It's happened to me a few times. For a game that touts itself as uncompromising survival, I don't think that's an unfair balance either; food should be easy enough for the average player(especially new players) to get a grasp on so they can move on to other things, but difficult enough that the player will still need to manage their resources a bit and not just eat a meal once in a blue moon. If the player doesn't manage their food supply properly, then they're going to have trouble accomplishing much of anything in the game. 7 hours ago, Rainbow Fresh said: Have you ever seen a real-life pickaxe? A real-life coal miner swinging it? If so, chances are high that what you saw wasn't some buff guy leisurely swinging the thing around in one hand, but rather using both his arms to really put force into the swing. After all, it takes alot of energy to break solid rock and as such pickaxes are usually designed as two-handed use tools. Now apply the same to Vintage Story. Define certain tools and weapons as "two-handed". Simple enough tag/JSON value system. These tools/weapons now simply get their stats cut - maybe in half, atleast by a third? - when you don't have your off-hand free. Seeing as two-handed items would perform much worse when only used one-handed because your other hand is pre-occupied. Mining rocks while holding a light takes significantly longer now, incentivising you to put that torch down instead of holding it. Fighting with a shield or torch out becomes much less effective when using long, two-handed weapons like the spear (and maybe falx? We would certainly need new weapons to balance this mechanic), making you ask the question what is more important to you: Killing faster with less durability use or living longer when getting potentially hit yourself. Incentivising NOT using the offhand more than necessary, not penalizing USING the off-hand at all, and without having just yet another system tied to "more hunger". Of course, I am still in favor of applying the previously mentioned debuffs to the shield itself aswell, because it is for all effects and purposes an additional piece of armor. This suggestion I do like more though, since instead of just demanding that the feature be deleted with nothing to take its place(and therefore make the game easier), it offers a different sort of penalty instead. I was toying with similar thoughts the other day, however, the main strike I see against this idea is that while it does make sense, it may end up a little too confusing for players or produce other frustrations. For example, if one wants to go mining, they're going to need to set down their lantern each time, unless they're using night vision goggles or a feature is added to allow belt-lanterns or something. Same goes for fighting at night. It's also likely that some players would complain about not being able to use spears with shields(as was done historically in some cases) or otherwise being able to mine with a shield equipped for faster reaction times. Likewise, there'd probably be players getting confused about why their work speed is so slow or why they suddenly can't use ranged weapons effectively when they have something in their off-hand. Mind you, I'm not saying it couldn't work, just that I'm not sure it really solves an issue as much as it exchanges one set of complaints for a different set. I'm reminded of something I read about Age of Empires II's development a long time ago; basically, the game has a bonus for ranged attacks if the unit/building is standing on high ground and firing downhill. It's a nice bonus that makes logical sense and is decently easy for the player to figure out just from playing the game. The devs also wanted to add facing mechanics, where units that were attacked from behind would take extra damage, but they ended up cutting that feature since it would be difficult for the player to figure out and manage that mechanic in the midst of battle(and thus lead to a lot of confusion and frustration). 4
Rainbow Fresh Posted Wednesday at 04:13 PM Author Report Posted Wednesday at 04:13 PM 19 minutes ago, LadyWYT said: For example, if one wants to go mining, they're going to need to set down their lantern each time, unless they're using night vision goggles or a feature is added to allow belt-lanterns or something. That is true. And while I'm all for belts (I am playing with Quiver's and Sheaths - though funnily enough that doesn't come with belt lamps) to attach lanterns to much like the elk (you can do that, right? It's not just the Equus horse?), that would then still need it's own balancing penalty. Which, with how things currently are, would probably once again just boil down to higher hunger drain 22 minutes ago, LadyWYT said: It's also likely that some players would complain about not being able to use spears with shields(as was done historically in some cases) Well... There are multiple way to approach this specifically, I guess. As I stated originally a two-handed system would certainly need atleast a bit more weapon variety to deal exactly with one-handed vs. two-handed considerations. There could just be long, two-handed pokey stick and shorter, one-handed pokey stick that works with shields and other off-hand items. Or we re-open the can of discussing "why are thrown spears stronger than hand-held ones"... 25 minutes ago, LadyWYT said: being able to mine with a shield equipped for faster reaction times. Well, in an ideal world the shield would have debuffs itself aswell, incentivising not having it equiped most of the time. So all I can say keeping your shield close and a finger over F (or whatever swap hotkey you set) is the skill to learn, I guess? 27 minutes ago, LadyWYT said: Likewise, there'd probably be players getting confused about why their work speed is so slow or why they suddenly can't use ranged weapons effectively when they have something in their off-hand. Ok, this one I wouldn't really attribute as an issue to this approach itself. The off-hand penalty right now is, to my knowledge/memory, also not really explained. So these new players would equally get confused as to why they need to eat so much while constantly running around with a crude shield they never actively used (Hi, hello, I was that new player). Though I guess off-hand related mechanics could be easily, yet subtly be hinted at. Highlight the off-hand slot in a red-ish border when having a two-handed item equiped while the off-hand slot isn't empty. Subtle enough to not be "Hey, listen! You're playing the game wrong!" but an indicator that something is up nonetheless. Also, of course items would need a clear "is two-handed" tooltip to be able to figure it out even without a dedicated guide page. Can't really do that with a stat modifier number changing from 100% to 120% in a menu you have to actively open. 1
LadyWYT Posted Wednesday at 04:59 PM Report Posted Wednesday at 04:59 PM 28 minutes ago, Rainbow Fresh said: Ok, this one I wouldn't really attribute as an issue to this approach itself. The off-hand penalty right now is, to my knowledge/memory, also not really explained. So these new players would equally get confused as to why they need to eat so much while constantly running around with a crude shield they never actively used (Hi, hello, I was that new player). Though I guess off-hand related mechanics could be easily, yet subtly be hinted at. Highlight the off-hand slot in a red-ish border when having a two-handed item equiped while the off-hand slot isn't empty. Subtle enough to not be "Hey, listen! You're playing the game wrong!" but an indicator that something is up nonetheless. Also, of course items would need a clear "is two-handed" tooltip to be able to figure it out even without a dedicated guide page. Can't really do that with a stat modifier number changing from 100% to 120% in a menu you have to actively open. This is probably the best solution, that I've seen/can think of, anyway. One of the main problems is players not being aware of the penalty and getting confused about why hunger drains so fast, and then understandably getting frustrated/upset when they finally figure out why. I assume that many of these players are also assuming that the off-hand slot works similar to Minecraft or other games, where the slot is just there as an equipment holder/stat boost and otherwise has no impact. At any rate, having a note in the tooltips or handbook to alert the player to the penalties would solve that particular issue. 32 minutes ago, Rainbow Fresh said: Well... There are multiple way to approach this specifically, I guess. As I stated originally a two-handed system would certainly need atleast a bit more weapon variety to deal exactly with one-handed vs. two-handed considerations. There could just be long, two-handed pokey stick and shorter, one-handed pokey stick that works with shields and other off-hand items. I wouldn't mind seeing a two-handed system for weapons, but I would take it much further than simply preventing the player from using the off-hand/penalizing them for using the off-hand with a two-handed weapon. If two-handed weapons are implemented, I want to see spacing rules put into effect as well--that is, the player isn't going to be slinging around a greatsword/dane axe in a confined space, and polearms would have limited poke ability in such spaces. Overall, the two-handed system isn't the worst idea, but I'm still skeptical that it will really solve many complaints. 34 minutes ago, Rainbow Fresh said: So all I can say keeping your shield close and a finger over F (or whatever swap hotkey you set) is the skill to learn, I guess? Maybe, but part of the complaints about the current hunger mechanic seem to be that players need to swap items out of the off-hand slot. In which case, I don't think they're going to be thrilled about needing to learn this skill in an alternate system either. 40 minutes ago, Rainbow Fresh said: And while I'm all for belts (I am playing with Quiver's and Sheaths - though funnily enough that doesn't come with belt lamps) to attach lanterns to much like the elk (you can do that, right? It's not just the Equus horse?), that would then still need it's own balancing penalty. Which, with how things currently are, would probably once again just boil down to higher hunger drain Maybe. But a belt slot feels a lot more limited, so I'm not sure the hunger penalty would be needed. It's also less tiring to strap something to your waist and carry it around than it is to carry something around in your hands. If balancing is really needed though, I think it's as simple as making other useful items that can also fit in that slot. Maybe the player can carry a tool(like a pickaxe) there and simply retrieve it when they want to use it. Maybe that slot could be equipped with a small bag that can carry specific items, like herbs, or a handbasket that could act as additional storage; perhaps it's also storage that could be retained on death rather than dropped. In any case, those options give players more flexibility, while also requiring the player to make choices about which benefits they gain versus which they give up. 1
Rainbow Fresh Posted Wednesday at 05:18 PM Author Report Posted Wednesday at 05:18 PM 11 minutes ago, LadyWYT said: I wouldn't mind seeing a two-handed system for weapons, but I would take it much further than simply preventing the player from using the off-hand/penalizing them for using the off-hand with a two-handed weapon. If two-handed weapons are implemented, I want to see spacing rules put into effect as well--that is, the player isn't going to be slinging around a greatsword/dane axe in a confined space, and polearms would have limited poke ability in such spaces. At that point we are certainly drifting into essentially implementing Combat Overhaul. Which, you know, I am certainly not averse to. Would also solve a gripe I have with shield as they are right now - passive block. I get where it comes from: It's still a shield, still exists, and can still block. Just not targeted and not effectively. But implementing it as RNG is the cheap way out in a world where hitting is just a hitscan. With swing-radius-aware weapons we would basically already need a collider hitbox model at which point shields could "passively" block when and only when the hit actually physically intersects the shield. 14 minutes ago, LadyWYT said: Maybe. But a belt slot feels a lot more limited, so I'm not sure the hunger penalty would be needed. It's also less tiring to strap something to your waist and carry it around than it is to carry something around in your hands. If balancing is really needed though, I think it's as simple as making other useful items that can also fit in that slot. Maybe the player can carry a tool(like a pickaxe) there and simply retrieve it when they want to use it. Maybe that slot could be equipped with a small bag that can carry specific items, like herbs, or a handbasket that could act as additional storage; perhaps it's also storage that could be retained on death rather than dropped. In any case, those options give players more flexibility, while also requiring the player to make choices about which benefits they gain versus which they give up. Aaaand this is essentially Quivers and Sheaths. Which, you know, I too am certainly not averse to. It's the two mods I'd rather stay on 1.21 for if a kind samaritan didn't pick up Maltiez' work after he decided to forgo updating them to 1.22, probably to work on the official armor rework for 1.23. Of course just slapping it in as it is right now wouldn't really fit (esepcially as the thing has pistol harnesses) but the concept invites a general rebalance of inventory as a concept. Instead of wearing 4 simultaneous backpacks to increase your space, you could have one actual backpack slot for primary inventory expansion, and then dedicated attachments for specific items. Knife can go into a knife sheath. Sword into a sword sheath. Bow... could reasonably speaking go over your shoulder without any pouch, but to stick with the system, quiver for arrows. In order do not clutter the inventory (and player model) with too many things, make them use similar slots. You can either have a big sword or a pickaxe strapped to your back. Either a quiver or an e.g. herb pouch. Something like that, enabling more purposeful equipment storage and incentivising choosing your equipment for the task at hand, not be a bring-all-do-all. 1
LadyWYT Posted Wednesday at 06:40 PM Report Posted Wednesday at 06:40 PM 1 hour ago, Rainbow Fresh said: At that point we are certainly drifting into essentially implementing Combat Overhaul. Combat Overhaul is great as a mod, but goes too far for what the vanilla game should be, in my opinion. That's not to say combat couldn't be made a little more complex/interesting, but Vintage Story isn't an action game. Most of the challenges are rooted in the player being able to plan ahead rather than just react to the current moment; keeping a simpler system helps the game maintain a better balance between all the gameplay loops offered, as well as makes it easy for new players and returning players alike to jump into the game and start having fun. Given what's been teased so far about the armor rework, the devs seem to be doing a good job of adding more complexity without unbalancing or overcomplicating the gameplay. 1 hour ago, Rainbow Fresh said: Of course just slapping it in as it is right now wouldn't really fit (esepcially as the thing has pistol harnesses) but the concept invites a general rebalance of inventory as a concept. Instead of wearing 4 simultaneous backpacks to increase your space, you could have one actual backpack slot for primary inventory expansion, and then dedicated attachments for specific items. Knife can go into a knife sheath. Sword into a sword sheath. Bow... could reasonably speaking go over your shoulder without any pouch, but to stick with the system, quiver for arrows. In order do not clutter the inventory (and player model) with too many things, make them use similar slots. You can either have a big sword or a pickaxe strapped to your back. Either a quiver or an e.g. herb pouch. Something like that, enabling more purposeful equipment storage and incentivising choosing your equipment for the task at hand, not be a bring-all-do-all. Eh, as neat as it sounds, I think that's going just a bit too far. A single extra slot or two for certain equipment/bag types is fine, but pushing it further than that would make the inventory system very cumbersome to use. Sticking everything into what's essentially four magic backpacks isn't particularly realistic, but it gets the idea of backpacks/storage containers across while being a system that's easy for the player to use. Of course, I could just be misreading the concept, but basically, I'd rather keep my magic backpacks than be stuck juggling a single backpack and tools/weapons into and out of storage slots whenever I want to use them. 1
MKMoose Posted Wednesday at 06:53 PM Report Posted Wednesday at 06:53 PM (edited) 3 hours ago, Rainbow Fresh said: And while I'm all for belts [...] to attach lanterns to much like the elk [...], that would then still need it's own balancing penalty. 2 hours ago, LadyWYT said: I wouldn't mind seeing a two-handed system for weapons, but I would take it much further than simply preventing the player from using the off-hand/penalizing them for using the off-hand with a two-handed weapon. One thing that I don't get about this whole discussion is just, why does everything need a penalty? Two-handed weapons and several tools could get a buff when using them without anything in the off-hand. Even if it produces the exact same end effect, it is prudent to frame things in the way you want them to be received by the player. Why just punish them for using a feature, when you can reward the player for using the feature intelligently? I think it would work nicely to promote a "I need to do work here, so let's set up and put away unnecessary items" kind of mentality by limiting the buff to specific tools and weapons, which the current off-hand penalty doesn't achieve at all. Some items like the shield may still retain some debuffs, but I don't think that should be the norm. A secondary benefit of buffing the active tool instead of just applying a broad debuff is that the effect becomes limited in scope to the activity the player is currently doing and only applies when the player is actually doing something, rather than making for this passive, nagging penalty at all times even if the player isn't actually using whatever they have in the off-hand. And regarding the torch, I think that (even without implementing the above) it would be a perfectly suitable solution to just remove the penalty and give the player more useful items to put in the off-hand to serve as the tradeoff themselves. There is a range of things that this could include: a knife, ideally both for combat and for cutting or harvesting things, a walking stick, greater variety of weapons and combat-related items that can be used in the off-hand, like a dagger, a small crossbow, different types of shields, baskets, bags or pouches that can hold items the same way that bags work in the bag slots. Any item the player has equipped takes away the option to use all the other items, but it is a choice that the player makes and benefits from, instead of just having to put up with a debuff no matter what. And if you want to bring up that the player shouldn't just be able to have something in the off-hand at all times, then go back to the first point about buffing certain tools or weapons when the off-hand is empty. Remember that specific items can apply a small penalty if it makes sense specifically for them. 1 hour ago, Rainbow Fresh said: Of course just slapping it in as it is right now wouldn't really fit (esepcially as the thing has pistol harnesses) but the concept invites a general rebalance of inventory as a concept. Instead of wearing 4 simultaneous backpacks to increase your space, you could have one actual backpack slot for primary inventory expansion, and then dedicated attachments for specific items. Knife can go into a knife sheath. Sword into a sword sheath. Bow... could reasonably speaking go over your shoulder without any pouch, but to stick with the system, quiver for arrows. In order do not clutter the inventory (and player model) with too many things, make them use similar slots. You can either have a big sword or a pickaxe strapped to your back. Either a quiver or an e.g. herb pouch. Something like that, enabling more purposeful equipment storage and incentivising choosing your equipment for the task at hand, not be a bring-all-do-all. I think that dedicated ways to store specific items are likely an excess of complexity, and the hotbar is a somewhat gamified but simple, flexible and arguably necessary solution in a game that wishes to satisfy the preferences of more casual players and especially builders. I've had a very similar concept to what you're proposing, which started off from the idea I've mentioned to hold baskets in the off-hand. I would bring this set of changes to the table: Reduce the generic bag slots to only one back slot for backpacks only (including possibly frame packs and similar stuff, and likely also skeps or whatnot) as the primary determining factor for bulk transport. Add two or three belt attachment slots which could hold a purse or pouch for small tools and items (larger number of slots but greatly reduced stack size, potentially all the way to one), a girdle for larger tools and ideally something else as well, a quiver (possibly giving a draw speed bonus alongside arrow capacity), maybe herb or seed bags, maybe also lanterns, some Jonas tech or improvised devices. Change baskets and linen sacks to be carried in the off-hand. Naturally, some rebalancing may be necessary. In a system like this, the off-hand could play a much more interesting role than it does currently - for example, you could greatly increase your carry capacity with a linen sack on a stick or employ the off-hand for any range of purposes, but at the cost of possibly forgoing a different belt attachment in favor of a lantern. This way, the off-hand becomes involved in multiple context-dependent choices at different scales, the first when you're deciding on what to carry in the longer term courtesy of the overlap between the benefits of off-hand items and belt attachments, and the second on a more moment-to-moment basis. Edited Wednesday at 07:15 PM by MKMoose 1
Rainbow Fresh Posted Wednesday at 08:08 PM Author Report Posted Wednesday at 08:08 PM 59 minutes ago, MKMoose said: One thing that I don't get about this whole discussion is just, why does everything need a penalty? Two-handed weapons and several tools could get a buff when using them without anything in the off-hand. Even if it produces the exact same end effect, it is prudent to frame things in the way you want them to be received by the player. Why just punish them for using a feature, when you can reward the player for using the feature intelligently? While the phrasing "penalty" is certainly rather negative in nature, you are correct there, think about it that way especially in the context of the two-handed system it proposed: If something is designed to be used with two hands, that's its default/max/100% state. Using it with only one hand gives you less. Therefor it would logically be a penalty. If we frame it like a buff it would be more like "everything gets strong if I dual wield it", in which case it would be weird that only chosen things can be dual wielded like that to get a buff. Atleast that's how I see it. 1 hour ago, MKMoose said: A secondary benefit of buffing the active tool instead of just applying a broad debuff is that the effect becomes limited in scope to the activity the player is currently doing and only applies when the player is actually doing something, rather than making for this passive, nagging penalty at all times even if the player isn't actually using whatever they have in the off-hand. This, however, could help selling the system to more people without raising complaints about debuffs again. In the end though I think it boils down to what is easier to balance - establish a baseline and just cut it as necessary to make a point, or create a baseline that is lower to account for the situtions where buffs apply to not get out of hand? 1 hour ago, MKMoose said: [...] In a system like this, the off-hand could play a much more interesting role than it does currently While also an interesting concept, even I fear that leaning too far into utilizing the offhand is not the best idea aswell. Aside from the concerns about excessive off-hand utility turning into Minecraft 2.0 which, while not 100% accurate do stem from a genuine and truthful core, The offhand mechanically not integrated well enoug into gameplay to get extended use out of it so far. Think about how reasonably you can access the current hotbar slots and backpack slots, and how you can only access the offhand via manually dragging items there or by swapping them into the main hand first. Combine that with full containers only being placeable, not storable in any slot and having functioning backpack space in your offhand would already forcibly require a rework of how you can interact with the offhand. And just adding another combination of keys to place from/grab into off-hand is not helping the already cluttered control scheme. 1
BurgerDaddy Posted Wednesday at 09:18 PM Report Posted Wednesday at 09:18 PM I do love the idea of two handed items. I could see implementing that functionality as a way to balance offhand use. Not that I personally care a lot about combat, but it seems like this change would make sense to tackle along with major combat changes, which then becomes a large task… code is always, in my limited experience, more dense and tangled than it appears on the surface. I imagine this could be why we still have a simple effect in place regarding the off hand, I think of it as a placeholder until the system is developed to the point that something better emerges. Of course people would be excited at the two hand swords and dual wielding nunchucks like Michelangelo… …more interesting to me though, here are few non combat focused things I think could be really neat, if two handed items existed: If the pick was divided into two items, a light one handed pick (perhaps the pro pick morphs into this so we don’t have 3 pick types), and a heavy two handed pick, both being viable mining tools. Details of how this works could be argued over in excessive detail I’m sure… faster/slower, more/less durability, etc, but the intent in my mind is to give the player a choice about how they want to approach mining, and also it would feel cool for multiplayer and encourage teamwork. I enjoy mining in pairs, in the pre offhand TOBG days just having someone place torches along with me as I mined was reason enough. Heavy Sledges! Something that I experienced just once in real life was working in tandem with other blacksmiths. It was so dang cool! We made a small ancient style anvil for a historical reenactment group. The lead smith managed the fire, the peice, and led the rhythm with a one handed hammer. The (rather gruntish) job of my peer and I was to strike the location he had indicated with his hammer hit, in rhythm, with our two handed sledges, and pay attention to when he paused. It felt like being part of a dance and also a 3 person machine. Tink, Bang, Bang. Tink, Bang, Bang. Rest, reheat… repeat. When I first played around with the smithing mechanic in Vintage Story I realized that it might be possible to do something like this because of the way the peice exists in the world. Maybe to some degree it already is, I don’t know, but the idea of a player being something like a manual helve hammer while another player managed the piece is pretty cool, and also historically accurate. Little side thoughts… Shovels are definitely not typically used one handed. Trowel sure, shovel no. Axes, same. A little hatchet sure, but not the thing used for felling a tree. In real life many (most?) of our tools are dedicated to two hand use or one hand use. Of course there are exceptions, of course this isn’t real life… but there is some spark of fun potential that I imagine in a system that mimics this. (I know I’m hand waving the technical details of how this would work, I guess I just have faith that if the dev team decided to set their minds to making it they could figure it out.) 2
LadyWYT Posted Wednesday at 11:13 PM Report Posted Wednesday at 11:13 PM 3 hours ago, MKMoose said: One thing that I don't get about this whole discussion is just, why does everything need a penalty? Two-handed weapons and several tools could get a buff when using them without anything in the off-hand. Even if it produces the exact same end effect, it is prudent to frame things in the way you want them to be received by the player. Why just punish them for using a feature, when you can reward the player for using the feature intelligently? Not everything needs a penalty, but I don't think games need to always be soft around the edges. It's perfectly OK to slap players with penalties for certain actions, and providing clear drawbacks can make choices a lot more interesting than just an "okay, what buff stick do you want to hit the bad guys with today?" I also think it's perfectly fine to make it clear to the player that not every choice will work to their direct benefit; allowing the player to make bad choices and suffer the consequences helps the world feel real, and invites the player to consider what they're doing carefully since the outcome is actually going to matter. To cite Skyrim as an example: most choices the player can make don't feel impactful, because the end result is almost always the same--some distinct benefit. The player can't actually fail most quests or otherwise lock themselves out of content by their choices; in contrast, previous titles would let players fail quests or lock themselves out of factions and benefits depending on the choices they made. I think this might be one of the reasons why many modern games feel a little lacking compared to older games, and why Vintage Story feels like a breath of fresh air. The player can make many choices, but not every choice will result in something beneficial, and sometimes gaining particular benefits means accepting certain drawbacks.
Bruno Willis Posted Thursday at 12:04 AM Report Posted Thursday at 12:04 AM 4 hours ago, MKMoose said: Reduce the generic bag slots to only one back slot for backpacks only (including possibly frame packs and similar stuff, and likely also skeps or whatnot) as the primary determining factor for bulk transport. Add two or three belt attachment slots which could hold a purse or pouch for small tools and items (larger number of slots but greatly reduced stack size, potentially all the way to one), a girdle for larger tools and ideally something else as well, a quiver (possibly giving a draw speed bonus alongside arrow capacity), maybe herb or seed bags, maybe also lanterns, some Jonas tech or improvised devices. Change baskets and linen sacks to be carried in the off-hand. Naturally, some rebalancing may be necessary. In a system like this, the off-hand could play a much more interesting role than it does currently - for example, you could greatly increase your carry capacity with a linen sack on a stick or employ the off-hand for any range of purposes, but at the cost of possibly forgoing a different belt attachment in favor of a lantern. This way, the off-hand becomes involved in multiple context-dependent choices at different scales, the first when you're deciding on what to carry in the longer term courtesy of the overlap between the benefits of off-hand items and belt attachments, and the second on a more moment-to-moment basis. I think Vintage story does a good job at abstracting things, and the hotbar is a really good one. I tried the sheaths and belts mod, and it just felt like a complex way to get an awkward extra slot on my hotbar. Now it feels to me that the hotbar is your belts and sheaths, but it functions so fluidly and effectively that we forget what it actually represents. To drive home the idea that the hotbar is your belt and pockets, lamps and lanterns in your hotbar could be made to produce light when you're not actively holding them (slightly dimmer than when held, cause you're not directing the light intentionally). If I were changing that, I'd also have it so torches cannot be carried on the belt while lit, but light a lot faster. That way you've got passive lighting on your belt from a fat lamp or lantern, and if you want to use lots of cheep lighting sources placed all over the place, you place torches down and set them on fire, and put them out before you shove them back in your backpack. You'd have to be careful to keep your torch in your hand or off-hand, which would be awkward, but it would feel more like fire. 11 hours ago, Demoncyborg said: i won't lie it's a little under-baked, but so are all the other survival features at the moment. i think it's something that'll eventually see a touch up, maybe with the potentially incoming status effects update. I also do not like the suggested penalties of slower mining/less damage, my personal fix (but i don't see it needing fixed at the moment) would be an adjustment of these items rather than a change. I'd add multiple hunger %'s to the common off-hands instead, with torches having the lowest penalty, and the un-snuffable lantern being higher (probably just the current rate) as it's heavier and more valuable. It's similar to how heavier armor is more 'expensive' to wear. edit: i did just think about this a bit more in the context of armor, without a hunger penalty there's very little reason to not always wear a shield too. they should probably have the highest 'penalty' out of all of them I've been finding I'm picking up sticks into my off-hand on accident a fair bit since fishing was added? I really like the idea of weighting the hunger penalty to different items. I could even imagine having a stick in your off-hand could reduce hunger by 2% (referencing a temporary walking stick), there could be a carved walking stick which reduces hunger even further, and then a torch could increase hunger by %10, tongs by %15 hammer by 20% and shield by 25%. I love my shields and that'd still be an improvement for me. 16 hours ago, Rainbow Fresh said: Clearly, there are opinions on this matter and arguments to be had for both sides. Though through all this bickering back and forth I came to realize that apparently noone ever made a dedicated suggestion on how to properly solve this issue. So here I am, trying to do my part. Thanks for starting a productive discussion about how to improve this feature. We may not all agree, but I think we're getting onto some interesting solutions. 4
williams_482 Posted Thursday at 01:57 AM Report Posted Thursday at 01:57 AM What I like about the current system is: - It's a meaningful penalty, but not a debilitating one. 20% more food consumption matters enough to care about it, but not enough that you have to cut out big parts of the gameplay to avoid it. - It encourages you to keep an empty hand most of the time. Carrying stuff in each hand is more tiring than not. - Because there is a cost, you have a decision to make on when it is or isn't worth it. Decisions are good, generally. - This cost becomes much less significant once you are food stable, effectively making reducing this penalty part of the progression. What I don't like: - It's poorly documented and not shown in the UI at all, which makes it a trap for new players. This is a serious issue and must change. - +20% for everything is clearly arbitrary, and it really should vary depending on what. Both shields (heavy) and torches (awkward) should be relatively costly, smaller tools like tongs and chisels relatively cheap but not free. I'm intrigued by a system where many tools (pickaxes, axes, bows) require two hands, either to use at all or for maximum effectiveness. Needing to place light sources in order to both see and use a pickaxe efficiently would be an acceptable tradeoff to me, at least under most circumstances, but it would be considerably more annoying than accepting the current +20% hunger penalty. I would want a way to negate that later in the game. Relatedly, the fact that weapon / light source / shield is currently a "pick two" sort of deal and never really goes away is also a problem that I would want solved in the progression somewhere. The night vision mask is supposed to be a solution, but it fall short because 1) it takes up an armor slot (much more costly than losing a shield) and 2) it doesn't stop mobs from spawning the way actual light sources will. I'd like to see this solved with a backpack change that allows dedicating a slot of more advanced backpacks to a lantern, allowing a trade of inventory space for lighting. I see the suggestion along these lines upthread, and I offer my own rough proposal here: 4
qualicabyss Posted Thursday at 02:21 AM Report Posted Thursday at 02:21 AM I love the idea. Even if not implemented could we please not have a massive 20% hunger penalty just for using tongs? Taking them in and out of your off hand constantly while smithing is a massive pain.
LadyWYT Posted Thursday at 02:48 AM Report Posted Thursday at 02:48 AM 18 minutes ago, qualicabyss said: Even if not implemented could we please not have a massive 20% hunger penalty just for using tongs? Taking them in and out of your off hand constantly while smithing is a massive pain. Smithing is tough work though, so while it may not be much effort to just hold a pair of tongs, it is a lot of effort to shape metal. I think that's what the 20% is supposed to translate to in this case. I also don't think the player is meant to be juggling the tongs when doing smith work, since smithing requires holding a hot piece of metal in place so it can be shaped. From a game perspective, it's probably a lot easier to code a simple off-hand penalty for tongs instead of trying to write code to account for whether the player is hitting the anvil/workpiece versus just hitting something else. 50 minutes ago, williams_482 said: - It's a meaningful penalty, but not a debilitating one. 20% more food consumption matters enough to care about it, but not enough that you have to cut out big parts of the gameplay to avoid it. This too. It's similar to the hunger penalty that Blackguard has, which really isn't that much either.
Phantom72 Posted Thursday at 06:27 AM Report Posted Thursday at 06:27 AM If we're sticking with the 20% penalty then having the main hand empty SHOULD reduce food consumption. TBH, early game it's a PITA but generally it doesn't bother me. What bothers me is the lack of logic behind it. It would be zero effort to remove it if you have access to the original source code. So I still vote for removing it until there's a better system.
MKMoose Posted Thursday at 08:36 AM Report Posted Thursday at 08:36 AM (edited) 9 hours ago, LadyWYT said: Not everything needs a penalty, but I don't think games need to always be soft around the edges. It's perfectly OK to slap players with penalties for certain actions, and providing clear drawbacks can make choices a lot more interesting than just an "okay, what buff stick do you want to hit the bad guys with today?" I also think it's perfectly fine to make it clear to the player that not every choice will work to their direct benefit; allowing the player to make bad choices and suffer the consequences helps the world feel real, and invites the player to consider what they're doing carefully since the outcome is actually going to matter. To cite Skyrim as an example: most choices the player can make don't feel impactful, because the end result is almost always the same--some distinct benefit. The player can't actually fail most quests or otherwise lock themselves out of content by their choices; in contrast, previous titles would let players fail quests or lock themselves out of factions and benefits depending on the choices they made. I think this might be one of the reasons why many modern games feel a little lacking compared to older games, and why Vintage Story feels like a breath of fresh air. The player can make many choices, but not every choice will result in something beneficial, and sometimes gaining particular benefits means accepting certain drawbacks. And all of that can basically be collapsed into my "some items like the shield may still retain some debuffs". It's not about large-scale choices on allowing the player to fail or whatever. It's about a simple design decision: given a specific design goal, do you want to punish the undesirable action or reward the opposite? Starvation - increasingly punish eating too little or reward consistency and variety? Weeds - kill off crops overrun by weeds, or give the player a benefit for removing weeds? Animal health - allow animals to starve and even die when neglected, or boost their productivity when fed consistently and cared for? Death - penalize the player for dying, or reward long-term survival? Creative building - penalize the player for spending time on building (i.e. hunger increase for chiseling), or additionally reward the player for it? Temporal storms - punish the player for hiding, or reward the player for engaging with the storm? Damage types - penalize the player for using the wrong damage type, or reward them for using the optimal one? Progression systems - create problems when using early-game items, or add more benefits to late-game items? Terrain traversability - focus on making some areas deliberately poorly traversable, or on ensuring that certain areas are as engaging and pleasant to move through as possible? Off-hand - penalize having items in the off-hand, or reward two-handed item use? This reward-punishment dichotomy is absolutely everywhere. In many cases, people just make the wrong choice when making suggestions, and that can often be seen in how the suggestion is received. I've just seen a dude suggest adding rats and mice with the only provided justification being that they should eat crops - but how about we maybe think of any benefit to the player? In many cases, developers also make the wrong choice, and are sometimes then surprised or confused when people don't like changes. A lot of the time, both a reward and punishment is preferable, because they can address slightly different problems and can create a deeper system when combined. In some cases, only rewarding the player for voluntarily putting in the effort is practically the objectively correct answer. In certain situations, implementing neither is the best solution. Merely penalizing the player is rarely the correct answer. Letting people enjoy mechanics really isn't that complicated. To a large extent, it's just about framing - psychologically, a reward tells the player "do this more often", which builds more consistent behavior, whereas a penalty just says "stop this" or "avoid this". We tend to perceive benefits more positively and seek them out, but also may get discouraged when losing them or lose intrinsic motivation as a result of consistent rewards, especially if they are seen as controlling. Penalties and punishment trigger stronger avoidance but don't actually teach the player what they should do instead, and don't build consistent habits - they can be a strong short-term motivator, but do poorly for long-term learning. These distinctions matter even if the end effect is ultimately the same. And regardless of whether you're rewarding or punishing, here's my simple recommendation: keep the scope targeted and intentional. A blanket debuff for simply having an item in the off-hand (which applies at all times regardless of what that item is) is not targeted and intentional, which makes its effects disconnected from the benefits of off-hand items. 12 hours ago, Rainbow Fresh said: While the phrasing "penalty" is certainly rather negative in nature, you are correct there, think about it that way especially in the context of the two-handed system it proposed: If something is designed to be used with two hands, that's its default/max/100% state. Using it with only one hand gives you less. Therefor it would logically be a penalty. Besides the psychological framing I've mentioned above, there's also the balancing perspective - it is more straightforward to balance weapons as equal in one hand and buffed when dual-wielded (and then estimate the value of the buff to compare with other items that can be used in the off-hand), and I think it would also be more intuitive from the player's point of view. 12 hours ago, Rainbow Fresh said: If we frame it like a buff it would be more like "everything gets strong if I dual wield it", in which case it would be weird that only chosen things can be dual wielded like that to get a buff. Atleast that's how I see it. I think that in the majority of cases it is possible to easily determine which items should get the two-handed buff so that they would make sense in gameplay, both by analyzing existing gameplay patterns and by drawing from a realistic perspective: relatively obvious buff: a bow should be buffed with an empty off-hand, because it realistically simply requires a second hand to draw (and it's also probably the strongest candidate for an item which can only be used two-handed, which could be implemented by requiring the player to hold arrows in the off-hand), a spear used in melee combat should naturally get a buff when two-handed, an axe, a pickaxe, a saw, a shovel, a scythe, a hoe, an oar, and a fishing pole should quite naturally be buffed by the empty off-hand, because realistically they are generally more efficient with two-handed use, and there are no major conflicts with any other game mechanics asking the player to use their off-hand (additionally, I think it would be a good thing for theming and player engagement to incentivize stronger focus on separating tasks - when you're chopping wood or mining or fishing, make it look like it, instead of jumping in and out of it), buff when two-handed wouldn't make sense or isn't needed: a shortsword has no business being buffed when two-handed, because it can't really be two-handed - even if you try, you reduce your own reach by keeping both hands on the hilt, a spear and a sling shouldn't require an empty hand for throwing, which would also differentiate them from the bow, a knife is generally a one-handed tool, and it should be that way in the game as well, a chisel cannot be buffed when two-handed because it requires a hammer in the off-hand, several tools like a prospecting pick, a cleaver, a wrench or a crowbar just don't really need any buffs when two-handed, in part because they are only used intermittently, debatable cases: a falx is a bit unclear - I would personally love to see it get two different attacks (one-handed slashing, two-handed chopping, and similar distinctions could be made for some other weapons), but that would take a combat rework first; in the meantime, given that the falx and spear are the primary melee weapons in the game, I think that it would seem reasonable to contrast the two of them by making the falx work the same with or without an empty off-hand (and thereby also indirectly incentivizing the use of shields and other off-handed items), a hammer could potentially be buffed when two-handed for forging as a way to encourage collaborative multiplayer forging, but it's not really necessary and could be seen as penalizing solo players who need to use tongs at the same time, so I would lean towards avoiding undesirable incentives and not giving it a buff when two-handed, whether shears can be one-handed realistically depends on the shears - I would lean towards making them one-handed, although their current gameplay function of chopping branches off of trees tends to disagree, it really doesn't matter much for a prospecting pick whether it's two-handed as long as it's frequently used together with the pickaxe and the shovel which are both two-handed. In some cases, especially those where it can't be clearly defined whether an item should be one-handed or two-handed (hammer, shears, prospecting pick), separating out a light and heavy tool variant is an option if there is a good gameplay distinction that can be made out of it. In the case of the prospecting pick, allowing it to be used for regular mining albeit less efficiently than a full pickaxe seems like a reasonable idea, which would also make it a more enticing item to pack when travelling. The simplest way of implementing most of these is increasing mining speed and damage when using two-handed items with two hands. Some items like a bow or a fishing pole might need special effects. 12 hours ago, Rainbow Fresh said: The offhand mechanically not integrated well enoug into gameplay to get extended use out of it so far. Think about how reasonably you can access the current hotbar slots and backpack slots, and how you can only access the offhand via manually dragging items there or by swapping them into the main hand first. Combine that with full containers only being placeable, not storable in any slot and having functioning backpack space in your offhand would already forcibly require a rework of how you can interact with the offhand. And just adding another combination of keys to place from/grab into off-hand is not helping the already cluttered control scheme. It doesn't seem to me that this would be a significant issue. Granted, I may be biased as the kind of madman who binds the hotbar to [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, Q, Z, X, C, V] and keeps the button to switch hand contents under the thumb, so I have the fastest off-hand in the West, so to speak. Doesn't work in some games that require the left hand to manage significantly more than movement and hotbar, but it works out very well in this case for me. Regarding baskets or bags in the off-hand, on the assumption that they can only be carried in the off-hand as I've described: pick up: [RMB while looking at the bag], just like the existing bags, and probably only when the off-hand is already empty, OR [switch hand contents while looking at the bag], set down: [Ctrl + RMB while looking at a viable location with empty main hand] (may or may not allow to switch to another item in-place), OR [switch hand contents while looking at a viable location] (should also allow to switch to another item in-place). Does it take any more than this? I would have to watch a new player interact with it to see how it feels, but I think it would work quite fine. Managing other items in the off-hand like lanterns is a slightly more complex matter, and it might be useful to just get some sort of modifier to pick up items into the off-hand or place them from the off-hand, but the current functionality is also quite fine by itself, and adjusting it to prioritize taking items like lanterns into the off-hand in line with the above controls would be fine as well. 8 hours ago, Bruno Willis said: Now it feels to me that the hotbar is your belts and sheaths, but it functions so fluidly and effectively that we forget what it actually represents. To drive home the idea that the hotbar is your belt and pockets, lamps and lanterns in your hotbar could be made to produce light when you're not actively holding them (slightly dimmer than when held, cause you're not directing the light intentionally). Point given, belts and similar stuff should just stay in their clothing slot. But I do think that belt attachment slots could be used for some purses or pouches that can hold a larger variety of items in small stacks, in large part to solve the problem of completely filling up four backpacks with jewelry and butterfly pins in RA, one or two of each per slot. But regarding the lantern, I think that having more limited dedicated slots for light would produce a more intentional balance than just allowing to hold light in the hotbar. If a lantern could produce light in the hotbar, then there would be almost no reason to ever hold it in the off-hand (especially as long as the hunger penalty is in place), unless its light level in the hotbar was completely neutered. If you only have two or three slots which can hold either a pouch or a lantern, then it's a much more meaningful choice. Edited Thursday at 08:47 AM by MKMoose 2
Bruno Willis Posted Thursday at 10:08 AM Report Posted Thursday at 10:08 AM (edited) 1 hour ago, MKMoose said: But regarding the lantern, I think that having more limited dedicated slots for light would produce a more intentional balance than just allowing to hold light in the hotbar. If a lantern could produce light in the hotbar, then there would be almost no reason to ever hold it in the off-hand (especially as long as the hunger penalty is in place), unless its light level in the hotbar was completely neutered. If you only have two or three slots which can hold either a pouch or a lantern, then it's a much more meaningful choice. Yeah, I can imagine it working quite well to have two of the slots in the hotbar be explicitly "on the belt", maybe the farthest left and farthest right slots, or the center two slots. I imagine things that would have special effects when equiped there would be: Lanterns, which would shine as if held, but with light decreased by 15% Arrows. On the belt slots would become the only locations arrows would be drawn from when re-loading a bow Fishing bate. It would automatically re-bate your line when fishing. Pouches for carrying small things. I like the idea of pouches which can hold lots of small items. The way I'd do them would be to equip them in one of your two belt slots, and when you right-click on the ground, open them up as if they were a chest. Have them be able to sit in chests with small things stored in them. The devs would need to tag a whole lot of things as small enough to be pouched, and it'd have to be only very small items, but I think it'd be a nice use for a belt slot. I don't like the idea of carrying an extra bag in your off-hand. We can already carry so god-damn much it's ridiculous, and I think interacting with them from the off-hand will always be a bit clunky. What we need are wheelbarrows, crates, pullies and winches: that's the stylish way to shift heavy loads. 1 hour ago, MKMoose said: The simplest way of implementing most of these is increasing mining speed and damage when using two-handed items with two hands. Some items like a bow or a fishing pole might need special effects. No matter how the game words this effect, it will feel like a severe de-buff whenever you have something in your off-hand. I understand the realism reason, but I feel like this would cause more frustration than the current mechanic, unless hands-free lighting were implemented. I do like the distinction you've gone into with the specific items though, it is persuasive. I don't think bows need to be two handed. I can hold things in my bow hand while loosing arrows, without much trouble IRL. A full shield would probably require a bit of practice, but I bet it's doable. That one already has a good, realistic downside: you can't see where you're aiming. Otherwise, it would be interesting to have different effects with the way a weapon is held. It'd be good if they felt like alternative methods, not strictly better one way or another. Spear in two hands vs spear and shield is a good example, and a good justification for why it'd be good to give a damage buff when double-handing some things. Tools though, realistically you are always going to use the tool in the most optimal way. It's not a choice. If you want a pickaxe to be two handed, it's not really meaningful to offer the choice of wielding it inefficiently with one hand. I would be alright with exclusively two-handed picks, as long as I can carry a light on my belt. With all these changes, I would still keep a hunger increase, but tie it to heavy work rather than exclusively to the off-hand slot. You'd get increased hunger when wielding any tool tagged two-handed, as well as when using a hammer in one hand and chisel in the other. It makes sense and helps distinguish heavy work. It would be nice to have it varried based on what the work is (chiseling should increase hunger less than mining with a pick or digging with a shovel for example). With that said, I'd love to tie body heat to jobs that burn extra food. I'd be pretty happy with having extra hunger from two-handing my shovel if it meant I kept warm longer over winter. Edited Thursday at 10:14 AM by Bruno Willis Extra thought 3
Recommended Posts