Getting Dirty

[Perdido Street]

There is already some modularity with the player model in response to the environment (getting covered in frost from the cold), and it would be nice to see that mechanic expanded. Specifically, moving over soil or sand could cause the lower legs of the Seraph to get "dirty" over time. There could also be a difference in how quickly (or high up the leg) this happens depending on if the player is walking, running, or jumping.

The same with the frost caused by cold, dirt would be a temporary change in color; it would fade away once the player is no longer moving or is on a 'clean' block like stone or wood. These types of responsive changes, while being mostly aesthetic, add a lot of immersion.

Additionally, digging/mining or planting crops could have a similar effect on the arms (like slowly getting a layer of soot on the hands while smithing).

Edited June 20 by Perdido Street

[Minty Boi]

I think you should really only get dirty wading through water or walking when it rains. Dry dirt doesn't really leave a very noticable effect in real life, but mud certainly does.

[BurgerDaddy]

Mining coal. That is all.

[Minty Boi]

Just now, BurgerDaddy said:

Mining coal. That is all.

You're right, they should add Black Lung Disease to Vintage Story. 

[Perdido Street]

10 minutes ago, BurgerDaddy said:

Mining coal. That is all.

I wont disagree about coal being the dirty-est, but I come from a quarrying town and, trust me when I say, breaking any kind of stone is dusty work:

-doubly so if it's in an enclosed space like underground.

Edited June 20 by Perdido Street

[LadyWYT]

7 minutes ago, Minty Boi said:

Dry dirt doesn't really leave a very noticable effect in real life

No, dry dirt is pretty noticeable too. Mud makes a mess faster, but dry dirt is still a rather gritty, unpleasant feeling and gets rather messy when mixed with sweat. And other people do notice if you're all dusty.

 

52 minutes ago, Perdido Street said:

There is already some modularity with the player model in response to the environment (getting covered in frost from the cold), and it would be nice to see that mechanic expanded.

I like the idea, but I think it should have an effect on NPC interactions so that there's a reason for the player to take a bath, in addition to making the player more likely to get sick if they don't keep themselves clean. Harvesting carcasses and melee combat with certain creatures could splatter the player in blood.

 

11 minutes ago, BurgerDaddy said:

Mining coal. That is all.

I dunno about black lung disease. It is a realistic risk of coal mining, but given how much coal/charcoal the player needs to process throughout the game, it probably needs to be either a difficult disease to catch, or an easy disease to treat if added.

[Perdido Street]

4 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

Harvesting carcasses and melee combat with certain creatures could splatter the player in blood.

I'm not sure what level of gore is appropriate in this context, but (with the new hit detection, combat mechanics, and injury system that the devs are implementing) having critical hits (or hits received once below a certain health level) cause a red splotch or spatter on the model would certainly make things more visceral and reinforce the sense of lasting impact. Having poultices visually show up over these wounds when used would be an exceptional touch.

That's just for the player model (assuming the Seraph has red blood, which admittedly I don't know...... and the more I think about it having temporal-gear green/blue blood seems just as likely - not to mention useful for getting around that "appropriate level" of gore issue) though, having a similar effect on animals or rust mobs (but probably in the spectrum of black or brown for the latter) would also be useful for showing how well, or poorly, a fight is going.

Edited June 20 by Perdido Street
grammar

[LadyWYT]

1 hour ago, Perdido Street said:

I'm not sure what level of gore is appropriate in this context, but (with the new hit detection, combat mechanics, and injury system that the devs are implementing) having critical hits (or hits received once below a certain health level) cause a red splotch or spatter on the model would certainly make things more visceral and reinforce the sense of lasting impact. Having poultices visually show up over these wounds when used would be an exceptional touch.

A little blood splatter is probably fine; the entire model doesn't need to be drenched or anything. 

 

2 hours ago, Perdido Street said:

That's just for the player model (assuming the Seraph has red blood, which admittedly I don't know...... and the more I think about it having temporal-gear green/blue blood seems just as likely - not to mention useful for getting around that "appropriate level" of gore issue) though, having a similar effect on animals or rust mobs (but probably in the spectrum of black or brown for the latter) would also be useful for showing how well, or poorly, a fight is going.

Monster blood has been described as sludgy, and I'm not sure they really have any blood circulation, so there's not as much there to really splatter. Automatons would have oil and hydraulic fluid, and probably be messier in that case.

Of course, all the above could be ignored in favor of adjusting animations based on remaining creature health. It still gets the point across while avoiding potentially upsetting visuals. It'd also be interesting if perhaps certain enemy actions were disabled when at low health or under certain status effects. For example, a locust at low health might not be able to use its spring attack anymore, allowing the player to back away to safety or finish it off more easily.

[Seyko]

On 6/21/2026 at 12:40 AM, LadyWYT said:

A little blood splatter is probably fine; the entire model doesn't need to be drenched or anything. 

I don't think we'll see blood splatter in the vanilla version of the game. I remember a message from Tyron somewhere along the lines of "We won't be working on butchering because doesn't like cruelty." Else, it would be nice to get a blood trail from wounded game.

Edited June 28 by Seyko

[williams_482]

14 hours ago, Seyko said:

I don't think we'll see blood splatter in the vanilla version of the game. I remember a message from Tyron somewhere along the lines of "We won't be working on butchering because Saraty doesn't like cruelty." Else, it would be nice to get a blood trail from wounded game.

We have been told that they will not be implementing detailed butchery because a member of the development team is not comfortable with the level of gore that would involve (and candidly nor am I). We do not know who that team member is, and their identity is irrelevant anyway. 

[Seyko]

I didn't want to blame anyone.

[Chuckerton]

On 6/26/2026 at 6:03 PM, Seyko said:

Else, it would be nice to get a blood trail from wounded game.

I mean at least this would be nice for hunting. I dont really care for advanced butchering but i think hunting could use some love. If people are uncomfortable with any amount of blood then maybe there can be a toggle to turn it into hoof/paw/footprints when a creature is injured or running away. But red would stick out well against green grass or white snow

On 6/20/2026 at 4:40 PM, LadyWYT said:

Monster blood has been described as sludgy, and I'm not sure they really have any blood circulation, so there's not as much there to really splatter.

They might change that lorewise though. Coming from nobody but my own thoughts i guess, but that was in the item description for the falx as the reason that we dont have regular swords, saying that "A simple sword will not do here", but if theyre adding new weapons in the combat update, then will a simple sword still not do? I guess if we dont know what new weapons theyre adding, then maybe it wont change in the lore because we might not get a simple sword. But i hope we do, im okay with just "regular medieval weapons".

Edited June 28 by Chuckerton

[LadyWYT]

1 hour ago, Chuckerton said:

They might change that lorewise though. Coming from nobody but my own thoughts i guess, but that was in the item description for the falx as the reason that we dont have regular swords, saying that "A simple sword will not do here", but if theyre adding new weapons in the combat update, then will a simple sword still not do? I guess if we dont know what new weapons theyre adding, then maybe it wont change in the lore because we might not get a simple sword. But i hope we do, im okay with just "regular medieval weapons".

Regular weapons don't work so well because the creatures have metal hidden in their flesh and their blood flows like sludge. So you can't really rely on killing them via bleedout, and metal is going to be difficult to cut through when it comes to slicing and dicing. The falx is effective most likely because it concentrates the force of a swing into the tip of the blade, so it can more easily bypass the embedded metal and tear open a large wound upon exit.

For new weapons, I would assume that means functional versions of the ruined weapons you can find in the game. In terms of gameplay, the falx will still be better for monster-fighting in general due to the falx's autoloot feature, though the falx could receive a buff if needed in order for it to remain the prime monster-killer. Regular weapons will probably function more like the Blackguard shortsword--decent at fighting, but you'll have to loot the corpses yourself, and you don't always have time to do that in a fight.

[Chuckerton]

4 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

falx's autoloot feature, though the falx could receive a buff if needed in order for it to remain the prime monster-killer.

Autoloot feature? I didnt know it could do that, i basically never use the falx. I just use stone spears until i can make a blackguard sword. 

I hope they dont give it a monster fighting sword buff though. I dont like the falx as a weapon design. Sure its unique but i like regular old swords. Not to mention having a single weapon dedicated to an entire enemy type and then having a bunch of other weapons, all worse at dealing with this enemy type would suck. What are you going to use all the other weapons for? Wildlife? Why would we get new weapons if we end up being stuck with realistically one choice of weapon anyway? 

4 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

The falx is effective most likely because it concentrates the force of a swing into the tip of the blade, so it can more easily bypass the embedded metal and tear open a large wound upon exit.

i get why, lorewise, the falx would be a good weapon for these enemies, but we wanted to consider the realism of this (which i think is a mistake, its a fictional time abomination creature, do we even know if they have vital organs? As far as i know all we can infer from them is from bowtorns as they have bones, so we know they have those), then theres still other weapons that would probably be better. I mean the pickaxe is right there, or if you prefer the military version, being a warpick, maybe a 2 handed version like a lucerne. Or a billhook, or a poleaxe/halberd. I guess it really depends on how exactly the metal is in their bodies. If its a thin layer under the skin, or if its like metal tumors in their bodies. If its the former, then any of these options would be fine as they could punch through the metal layer. If its the latter, which i think it might be, then i get the falx, as you cut through the drifter until you are stopped on a metal tumor, you can pull the sword backwards and rip up flesh on the way out, and potentially pull the metal out (which would be my guess as to how that autoloot feature works). Either way, all of these other options would still work. Its still metal weapons being driven into a creature that is more or less fleshy and killable. 

If i were to figure out the niche for a falx, it would be that autolooting feature. Its unique and interesting and it makes sense, and it could still stand out as the abomination killer without offering an advantage that makes it the ONLY option. 

Edited June 28 by Chuckerton

[LadyWYT]

36 minutes ago, Chuckerton said:

Autoloot feature? I didnt know it could do that, i basically never use the falx.

It's a 25% chance, I believe, to rip out a piece of loot for you to pick up, so you don't have to harvest the corpse to get the loot. That being said, you need to interact with the corpse to make it disappear, and there may be loot still left on the corpse.

37 minutes ago, Chuckerton said:

I hope they dont give it a monster fighting sword buff though. I dont like the falx as a weapon design. Sure its unique but i like regular old swords. Not to mention having a single weapon dedicated to an entire enemy type and then having a bunch of other weapons, all worse at dealing with this enemy type would suck. What are you going to use all the other weapons for? Wildlife? Why would we get new weapons if we end up being stuck with realistically one choice of weapon anyway? 

I'm not the biggest fan of the falx design either, but a specific bonus against certain types of monsters would make sense if it needs some extra punch over other weapons when it comes to monster fighting. As a tradeoff, perhaps the falx doesn't fare as well against traditional metal armor, or is weaker against human/animal opponents.

For myself personally, I'd still be inclined to use other weapon types in spite of the falx potentially having bonus damage against monsters. Sometimes it's more about the character preference than it is what outputs the best numbers.

43 minutes ago, Chuckerton said:

its a fictional time abomination creature, do we even know if they have vital organs? As far as i know all we can infer from them is from bowtorns as they have bones, so we know they have those

I chalk them up to being the same as undead creatures in other franchises. Yes, they might technically have organs, or what's left of organs, but they don't really require such in order to function, same as they continue to function in spite of a broken bone or torn flesh. In such circumstances, the general idea is to inflict as much damage as possible to make sure it actually dies, rather than going for a specific weak spot or otherwise injuring it and returning to finish the job later.

 

47 minutes ago, Chuckerton said:

I mean the pickaxe is right there, or if you prefer the military version, being a warpick, maybe a 2 handed version like a lucerne. Or a billhook, or a poleaxe/halberd.

These might have more penetrating power, but that quality also makes them more likely to get stuck. They also don't have the sharp blade to rip through more flesh on the way out either.

 

49 minutes ago, Chuckerton said:

I guess it really depends on how exactly the metal is in their bodies. If its a thin layer under the skin, or if its like metal tumors in their bodies. If its the former, then any of these options would be fine as they could punch through the metal layer. If its the latter, which i think it might be, then i get the falx, as you cut through the drifter until you are stopped on a metal tumor, you can pull the sword backwards and rip up flesh on the way out, and potentially pull the metal out (which would be my guess as to how that autoloot feature works)

Generally, I assume that the metal in their bodies is what serves as their skeleton, albeit with extra bits twisted throughout. If you've ever seen an armature for a sculpture, that's probably what's going on with the monsters. Bludgeoning weapons probably aren't that effective since flesh acts as a shock absorber and metal isn't going to snap like bones will.

 

53 minutes ago, Chuckerton said:

If i were to figure out the niche for a falx, it would be that autolooting feature. Its unique and interesting and it makes sense, and it could still stand out as the abomination killer without offering an advantage that makes it the ONLY option. 

Pretty much. If nothing else, the autoloot chance could be increased before worrying about giving it bonus damage against monsters. That sort of convenience is really hard to ignore in a temporal storm.

[Chuckerton]

23 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

Pretty much. If nothing else, the autoloot chance could be increased before worrying about giving it bonus damage against monsters. That sort of convenience is really hard to ignore in a temporal storm.

i might have to make one to take with me in caves then because sometimes i have an assault launched against me, and other times looting creatures with the knife sometimes bugs out. 

If there were human enemies or more non-drifter enemies, then i would say its fine, but theres just too few enemies and too many of them are drifters for a bonus from x weapon type on y enemy imo. So if they do give it a damage buff, then i would hope for new enemy types beyond drifters. 

I do still think considering realism with fighting drifters isnt a good idea though. We dont know exactly the mechanics of how they are injured or killed in the same way we wouldnt necessarily know how regular zombie media handles injury or death unless the media goes into detail, and currently vs hasnt done that other than saying the falx is the weapon of choice and a few pieces of information about the enemy that doesnt go into very good specifics. 

I always see realism in gaming as a canvas for which to paint on, it's the starting point but you cannot be afraid to paint over it, most masterpieces do to some or a large extent, because *realistically*, plate armor does not slow you down that much and *realistically* a bear or wolf will absolutely maul you and you are not fast enough to run away from it, and you cant sprint at full speed backwards, and you would have to recraft candles or refuel lanterns, and theres alot more that goes into making a structurally stable structure than the building mechanics in this game... and the list goes on.

I usually prefer "authenticity" over "realistic". It doesnt need to copy real life but it can certainly feeeeel realistic.