LadyWYT

Do you happen to have a screenshot of the setup? Also how long was the tunnel? If it was longer than 11 blocks, that's likely the problem, since charcoal pits have a maximum size of 11x11x11.

I would just leave them. Stunted plants will still yield a harvest and seeds, just the harvest will not be as good as would be from undamaged crops. If the plants end up dying from exposure, you won't get any harvest, but you will at least be able to salvage the seeds.

Chunk maybe isn't the right term for it. There's a maximum radius you can sample, same as there's a minimum radius, but I forget what that radius is. Generally, I try not to go more than 10-12 blocks away from the first block that I sampled. The wiki has a more in-depth explanation of the process, along with visuals: https://wiki.vintagestory.at/Guide:Prospecting It's definitely a tricky system to learn, but once you get the hang of what you're doing it's fairly easy to use.

Right, but when it comes to servers, it's on the user to do their own research on what mods the server uses and what rules are enforced before they join. So if a user has stricter preferences, they're the ones that need to do the extra legwork when it comes to figuring out if a server supports their playstyle. To my knowledge, games in general don't offer players the option to filter servers by specific mods; they just allow players to sort servers via game mode and 18+. Anything more feels like an unnecessary hurdle and likely to generate confusion and complaints. When it comes to mod dependencies though, I think it's acceptable to filter out mods that have an ignored mod author's mods listed as dependencies. It saves the player some hassle when it comes to building their personal modlist. Players are still gonna complain with this system, of course, since inevitably they're going to be excluding some popular mods by setting filters that restrictive. But I mean, at that point that's entirely on them.

For prospecting, you need to mine three different blocks within the same chunk, at a minimum of each one being three blocks away from the other. If you mine in a straight line, for example, the second example needs to be a minimum of three blocks away from the first block that you mined, and the third block needs to be a minimum distance of three blocks from both the first and second blocks mined. After you've mined the third block, the prospecting results should display what ore can likely be found in the area. If the minimum distance is incorrect though, the pick will continue to prompt you for more samples, and if you take a sample that's too far aware from the first it will say as much and start the process anew.

Incidentally, a better option would be to just add a feature that lets users ignore mods based on mod author, similar to how you can ignore users and their content on the forums. Because I mean, chances are if the user is that strict about AI content, they aren't going to want to see anything else from a mod author that's okay with using AI. It's also the kind of feature that's useful for more than just AI content, since there are other various reasons that a user might want to filter out content from specific mod authors, and it can't be bypassed as easily as a tag can, since in order to upload a mod your name has to be attached to it.

Welcome to the game and forums! You should be able to download the game by logging into the Client Area at the top of the page. Do keep in mind that your game account and forum account use separate sets of credentials, so make sure that you are using the credentials appropriate for your game account. If you're still having difficulty with downloading the game, you'll want to submit a ticket to the support team, since they will have the tools needed to handle account-related issues. You can submit a ticket here:https://www.vintagestory.at/support/

Adding on to what @Rainbow Fresh said regarding prospecting, it doesn't hurt to dig at Poor and Very Poor readings sometimes, if that's all you have to work with. Especially when it comes to more rare ores like Chromite. It is true that the prospect results are only a probability of what's there, and not a guarantee. However, common ores like copper, tin, zinc, and bismuth will consistently show up at Decent or better readings, and will also show up fairly often even at lower readings. Iron tends to be the finicky ore to find, with magnetite being incredibly hit-or-miss and hematite being much more consistent about actually appearing where it's supposed to. Limonite I've only seen once, maybe twice, so I can't really speak to its spawn rates that much.

I don't mind more tags, but I'm skeptical that a tagging system alone really fixes anything, chiefly because of personal AI crusades. If that's why I come across as harsh in some responses, that's why. There are several users that don't really seem to want to use tags or filters, as much as they want to ban anything remotely related to AI and demonize others who used such tools. As I was trying to say before, the reason I don't think this is really better, is that something like this will likely lead to several players complaining about not being able to play on the server they want to play on, because there's mod(s) with the "AI content" tag. To me it seems that if a player is incredibly concerned about what mods are running on a server, they should check the modlist themselves ahead of time in addition to other rules and conditions that may apply to that server as well. That way they know exactly what they're signing up for. I suppose it's a similar case for mods themselves. Most mod authors will provide an AI disclaimer in their mod description, so the user generally still has prior warning if something slips through the filter. And it seems to me that it should be common sense to read the mod description before you download the mod, so that you have a better idea of what you're getting into. In any case, apologies to the OP if I was overly harsh. A specific "AI Content" tag itself would not be a bad thing to have, but I don't believe that it will prevent a user from seeing any AI content at all, and I'm under the impression that's not what most users(not the OP themselves necessarily) are actually after when they're complaining about AI content(aside from wanting it purged from the database entirely). You're still going to have things slip through the cracks, and as @Teh Pizza Lady noted, it may not be possible to manually verify if something used AI content or not since it's possible to cover the AI's tracks.

The mod database doesn't require such disclosure. https://mods.vintagestory.at/terms Most users, however, are polite enough to include AI disclosure in their mod description though. There's already a filter feature for this in your database profile settings, and it can be adjusted in regards to how many reports a mod has to have received before it gets filtered out. There's also a report button to report mods for using AI or otherwise being low effort. If it's not reported, the filters won't catch it. I mean, I was messing around with the filters the other day, and as far as I could tell, setting the tolerance to the strictest possible setting caught most AI content. Some stuff still slips through the cracks, because not everyone is gonna look at every single mod, so it can take some time for something to actually get reported. However...that's also why the report button exists. Some people don't really care about making reports, this is true, however the fact remains that if you see content that you think qualifies as AI or low-effort...you should be reporting it if it really bothers you that much, when you encounter such mods. Otherwise, the mod isn't going to get filtered out. I will note that a tag system requires someone to actually enforce the tagging rule. Which means someone has to be looking through the mod's code to see whether or not AI was actually used. Reports alone aren't enough, because false reports happen for various reasons, and mod authors are also gonna challenge the tags if they feel their mod was tagged unfairly. Needless to say, manually checking mods requires more time and effort, which means time and effort that's not being put towards actually developing the game.

Wapiti is a term for elk, yes.

Except it's not a campfire--it's a charcoal pit. It's an intended game feature that the player can build the charcoal pit improperly and fail to make charcoal as a result.

Who determines the committee though? And are they getting paid for this work, or just unpaid volunteers? Who enforces the rules? How do you determine what is AI code and what isn't, and how do you handle false positives(because it's going to happen)? And work for free. This is not a small job that you're asking people to do either. Someone has to sink the time into making the decisions, writing the rules, enforcing those rules, and dealing with all the fallout that will inevitably result because not everyone is going to agree with those rules. And keeping in mind that the more work you offload onto volunteers, the more it's going to make you look like you're just taking advantage of people so you don't have to actually pay them for their time, knowledge, and skill. With all due respect, I don't believe that's what all this is actually about. It very much comes across as wanting to enforce one's own personal opinion and preferences on the rest of the community, using "protection" and "quality" as the excuse. As I said in my previous post, I'm capable of reading mod descriptions and looking at screenshots and deciding for myself if a mod is something I want to use or not. My preferences are also different than the preferences of others, and there are things I will tolerate that others will not and vice versa. I don't want someone else telling me what mods I'm allowed to play with anymore than I want to be making that decision for other players. I think it's also fair to point out that when it comes to modding, maybe instead of trashing those who are relying on AI because they're still learning and don't have the time to learn or the skills and knowledge to do everything themselves yet, maybe the more experienced modders could offer to help them instead of trashing them and demanding the ban of a useful tool? Granted, it's probably not going to happen, because it's much easier to whinge about it and demand banning of the thing you don't like rather than devoting your own time, skill, and resources into helping others learn, but anyway...

Welcome to the game and forums. A tag alone won't prevent the mod from showing up on the user's database feed though, and slapping a tag on a mod if it gets enough reports also opens up the door to the mod author disputing the tag via tickets(because false positives happen). A hidden tag isn't foolproof either, but it allows users to filter out stuff they don't want to see. Perhaps report the mods that you think are low-effort/AI? You might also consider reporting the issue via the Discord or perhaps a support ticket, if you think the system might have a problem. Edit: Incidentally, I gave the filters another test, cranking it all the way down to the strictest tolerance of one report before a mod gets hidden. And the filters still work. This isn't really necessary, in my opinion, and will more likely lead to users getting confused/frustrated when they can't play on the server they want to play on because the mod download fails, in which case they're probably going to blame the game/Anego Studios for the problem instead of checking their own settings/picking a different server to play on.

Welcome to the game and forums! This is unfortunate, however, the handbook is pretty clear about charcoal pits burning to ash instead of charcoal if there's anything less than a full stack of wood in any of the space.

That's partly why the granite/igneous fields have become one of my favorite world types to play. Granite is a nice neutral color for building, and it's pretty fun to actually need to figure out how to work around a resource bottleneck. The leather bottleneck is actually one of the easiest to work around, provided one is playing with lore content enabled, since survival goods/commodities traders sell lime.

Okay, so who determines what constitutes "harmful" code, or other things the community needs "protecting" from? How do you determine who "knows how to code" versus who doesn't make the cut? Sure, you can ask them to explain how their code works, but how well do they have to explain it before they're considered "good enough"? Those who are already intimately familiar with coding will likely understand a highly technical explanation well enough, but those who don't know much about computers at all, let alone code itself, probably aren't going to understand the explanation. Likewise, how do you determine who has enough experience to use the AI tools? Are mod authors supposed to send in a resume and hard proof of their skills? That's not only a massive breach of personal privacy, but that's also something that will absolutely bog down the entire process of uploading mods and discourage a LOT of people from even trying their hand at modding. So use the report button if you think the mod is low-effort or using AI inappropriately, or is a security risk, breaking TOS, or otherwise is a bit fishy. That's why the button exists. And as I said before, there's a filter to filter out stuff that's been flagged as AI/low-effort, so you don't have to see that content. Otherwise, it's fine to have personal opinions about what constitutes good content versus bad, and what tools one should use and how. But it's generally in poor taste to force those opinions on others and not allow them to make their own choices, especially if you're doing it under the guise of "protecting" them. I'm perfectly capable of reading a mod description and deciding for myself whether or not I want to use the mod in question. I don't need someone else to do that for me. AI can be a very useful tool for finding information and learning how to figure things out. And when it comes to videogame modding...that's a far cry from professional software development. Yes, there are some high quality mods out there, but most mods tend to be average or below-average, since a lot of mod authors tend not to be professional coders as much as they are gamers just having fun in the sandbox making something cool. Likewise, "professional development" doesn't guarantee that the software is going to be high quality either, because there's quite a lot of software out there that is professionally developed but very poor quality--just look at some of the recent releases from AAA studios. If we're going to hold modders to professional industry standards though regarding the end products, why stop at AI though? Ban the mods that use bad MS Paint drawings too, because if one can put effort into ensuring the code is top-notch then there's no reason one should slack on the graphics as well. Same goes for mods that are intended for a specific server only and don't include detailed instructions of how to use them outside of that server environment(there are several mods like this cluttering the page)--if one can go to the trouble of making it, they should make sure everyone else knows how to use it. Same for mods that have multiple typos or otherwise have poor grammar in their description--if the mod author can't be bothered to correct spelling mistakes or use proper grammatical syntax in something as simple as a mod description, that doesn't really bode well for their code either.

I don't think it's fair to paint every mod author who uses AI tools as people who have no idea what their code will do. Yes, there are definitely some people that will just accept whatever an AI spits out and call it good, without bothering with any kind of quality control. However, there are also several mod authors that are very experienced with doing the work themselves, that offload the "grunt work" onto the AI and make sure that they look through the results and ensure the quality is solid before they release it for public use. It's also worth pointing out that AI tools can be used in several different ways; it's not always just code writing. Some will do the coding themselves, and use AI to generate images for the thumbnails/other mod assets. Some will use AI to write the entire mod, while others might only use it for snippets. Some might do the coding themselves, but use the AI as a personal librarian to look up things in the code for them, explain how certain parts of the code work, or otherwise get an idea how something might be coded before doing the work themselves. Overall, it's not the tool that's the problem. It's whether or not the person using said tool knows how to use the tool correctly, and how much they care about the quality of the finished product. I get that it can be frustrating to see swaths of low-effort content. However, low-effort is not something restricted to stuff made with AI tools. There is a filter feature on the mod database that will filter out low-effort/AI content once it reaches a certain threshold--how much gets filtered out depends on how you adjust the filter. A filter is probably the best way to handle a situation like this, since everyone has different levels of what they're willing to put up with. Otherwise you end up opening the door to a pretty draconian set of rules for the modding community, and a lot more mods getting banned than just those who used AI tools in their creation.

Are you talking about what @williams_482 described? Because that I can visualize and accept as something that sounds pretty fun to play with.

Welcome to the game and forums! There's currently no way to achieve the results you're after in the vanilla game, since disabling temporal stability will disable it for the entire world, not just portions of it. There is, however, at least one mod that should be useful to achieving the result you're after: https://mods.vintagestory.at/show/mod/49887 For what it's worth, most game settings, including temporal stability, can be changed after world creation, either by using a console command or simply clicking the pencil icon next to the world name and opening the Customize tab. Mods are a different matter, as some require a new world in order for them to take effect, and some cannot be uninstalled without breaking a world. Most, however, can be installed/uninstalled at will mid-playthrough, and the one I linked above seems to be one such mod. It's still a good idea to make a backup of your world before making big changes though, since things can go wrong.

I don't think it's the kind of thing that should be left entirely to a community vote. Players should be able to make reports, yes, but someone should be able to review those reports to determine if there's legitimate bad behavior by the reported individual or not. A system left entirely up to a community vote is way too easy to abuse, because that allows mob rule. I'd rather this, when it comes to water threats. I'm not sure that monsters should be absolutely everywhere, and given what the monsters potentially were to begin with, I'm not sure it makes sense to add aquatic varieties, outside of a mechanical type or two. Sharks and other natural creatures would be much better, and there's plenty of natural oddities in the sea that look spooky and/or are vicious enough to be a serious threat(like Humboldt squid). There is the potential for the water to turn into a safe haven from monsters, however, I do think there are several factors about a life at sea that counteracts this. Chief among them being...you actually need water for that sort of "haven" to actually be viable, and not everyone just wants to live on the ocean either. Likewise, there are a lot of resources the player will need, that cannot be obtained while out on the ocean, so the player will have to return to shore sooner or later in order to resupply and complete certain portions of the story. In fairness, the Malefactor's strengths are very much geared toward the early game, with the class itself falling off in the late game as a result. Blackguard is somewhat the opposite, where a lot of their strength doesn't show up until the late game, while their weakness can make the early game much harder if you aren't prepared to deal with it. So I'm not so sure that Malefactor really needs a late game gadget when it comes to balance. This is my general thought as well, and it would be a nice feature for the Malefactor to have to make them a more viable pick for adventuring. They'd still be a weaker choice in terms of late game power, however, lockpicks would be something cheap and incredibly useful in the early game, while still being an incredibly useful tool in the late game for easily getting extra treasure or bypassing traps/more dangerous areas in dungeons and story locations. It could also add some interest in multiplayer if there is an option to allow lockpicks to work on player-made locks. It could make for some interesting RP scenarios, or be an interesting choice for PvP situations since you're sacrificing power for utility that other classes won't have.

This is already a feature of the game. It's just the player is the one that will need to set their own challenge rules and adjust the world settings/install mods as needed to support the challenge. The only improvement I can really think to make here is add some sort of "map creator" feature for the mod database, where players can upload custom maps, similar to the feature that Minecraft has for community map creations. I don't really see the point of this though. What even determines a player's performance? Likewise, difficulty level is a very fickle thing in Vintage Story, since there are many options the player can adjust to make various things easier or harder. A summary is also pretty vague--does that mean items crafted, number of deaths, creatures killed...it could be any number of things. Objectives are also somewhat arbitrary; there are certain things every player needs to do to advance, but there are also a lot of things that can be skipped entirely. I could see it being a feature of a map editor, but I don't see much use for it otherwise. Same goes for the timer--if it's not a feature of the map editor, it could be handled via console command, or be a miscellaneous option in the same list as the auction house, chunk claims, and class-exclusive recipes.

The good news is you can change this setting by clicking the little pencil icon next to the world at world selection. Click "Customize", then go to the "Survival Challenges" tab and uncheck the box for "Prevent liquid source transport by buckets".

Did you turn on the "prevent liquid source transport by buckets" rule at any point? Or are you playing Wilderness Survival/Homo Sapiens difficulties? Both of those difficulties have the rule enabled by default. In any case, when the rule is enabled, you won't be able to place water sources with buckets; the bucket will instead empty itself on the ground like you've described. The only other thing I can think of is that if you are playing with mods, you may have a mod producing unintended behavior.

Oak is a solid default choice, but I like walnut and maple quite a lot, since walnut has a nice dark grey coloring to it, and maple...I dunno, there's something about the greenish brown color that's very nice. Birch I tend to prefer for chiseled highlights and furniture, though I do like to use it for spaces that need to look more open and airy. Larch and tropical woods I usually don't get around to messing with, but larch falls into the same general category as birch though a bit pink for my general taste. Ironically, pine I don't enjoy that much because it's a bright red-orange, but it tends to be a wood I use a lot for some reason. I suppose it's grown on me a bit over the course of playing the game, and it does make for a nice cabin. But generally speaking, I prefer more muted colors for the backdrop so that brightly colored decorations and accents pop.