LadyWYT

Only if said snowballs include rocks. The whole point of the throwing ability is to damage the player a bit at a distance and potentially knock them off of a vantage point, thus preventing the player from just avoiding the enemies by nerdpoling or otherwise sitting somewhere safe.

To a certain extent, a mount that's exotic is special enough. Take the ostrich, for example. They're small, so they're not suited to carrying both passengers and cargo. They might be fast by themselves, but perhaps not so much while carrying a passenger, or they might be able to sprint in a short burst of speed but tire quickly and need rest before more serious travel. Exotic mounts I would expect to be animals that typically can't be purchased and are very climate-specific(and thus hard to find). Sometimes they might be incredibly useful, like the elephant, or useful for specific types of terrain(like the water buffalo), but overall exotic mounts are mostly a vanity item. At least in my opinion. An elephant might be very useful but the player isn't necessarily going to want/be able to go to the effort of finding, taming, and caring for one. Another balancing factor that I think has perhaps been overlooked--cosmetics. A huge mount like an elephant will have much more expensive cosmetics than a smaller creature. Exotic mounts might be neat to own, but might not have many cosmetic options available(if they have them at all) since...well, they're not a common mount and thus don't have as many accessories designed for them. I'm not sure I like this idea. It's not terrible, exactly, but I don't think it's necessarily a good thing to give players the notion that to get the "best mount in the game" they have to go to a very specific, very harsh climate to get it. Sure, the player should be able to go to a climate like that and find an exotic beast for the bragging rights, if they so choose, but I think most mounts should probably serve in the same role the elk does now, or the role the horse has served throughout history. Easy enough to acquire, lots of accessory options, can carry you plus a friend, and can carry a decent amount of stuff as well. As a side note, having a more readily accessible creature to catch and tame as a mount is a really nice early game goal. I've been toying around with the concept via mods, and while it can mean a later start on the first story chapter, it leads to a better experience since the player now has a better travel option, as well as a better way to haul all their treasure back to their base. I know that it's already possible to acquire an elk in this fashion, but the problem with the elk is that they are limited on where they spawn and thus generally rather hard to find. Somewhat both. IRL I'm not as worried about, since they're large enough to plausibly serve as a smaller mount, and there's something to be said for style points. I wouldn't mind seeing them in the game as mounts(or just as ambient wildlife), but I think there are more interesting options that could be added first. The only thing they really have going for them is the stripes.

Personally, I'd rather see a donkey than a zebra. Realistically speaking...zebras aren't particularly nice, whereas donkeys have been trusty working animals for thousands of years. Donkeys are suitable for warmer climates, and can also be crossbred with horses to produce mules, which are another familiar, very useful working animal. Though in fairness, exact realism isn't as important in this case; plausibly realistic is more fitting for Vintage Story(hence why we can have elk as mounts). Elephants would also be a good exotic mount for warmer climates. Dangerous to hunt, but perhaps easier to "tame" due to higher intelligence, and able to essentially function as a terrestrial sailboat in terms of humanoid passengers and cargo. Assuming that some mounts could have limited combat abilities, the elephant would be a prime choice for that kind of role. Ostriches or emus would be a rather goofy and not very useful mount, but still quite fun. Water buffalo would work very well for warmer climates, and while they might not be that fast on land, they could be quite fast in the water. If I'm not mistaken, some of the warmer, marshier regions of the world will use them as mounts for precisely this reason(Malaysia and Brazil both have had police officers with buffalo mounts). Bison or oxen would be good choices for drier or cooler climates. Bears, of course, would be a pretty funny mount. That would also mean cute little baby bears, which means potentially needing to deal with angry mama bears. Not that there's anything wrong with zebras, exactly. Just that a zebra doesn't really have as much utility and isn't quite as interesting visually, aside from the stripes.

The saddle with backpacks is a packsaddle--that is, it's a handy tool that allows a creature to carry a lot of stuff, but it's not really a saddle that could really carry a passenger. At least not comfortably. I assume that mounts equipped with packsaddles wouldn't be able to be ridden. As for mount types, I'm guessing there might be some tradeoff, but I think tradeoffs would be a little easier to manage if mounts had actual stamina. Then you could have mounts like horses, that could take some hard riding for a day or two before needing to rest to regain their strength. Camels might not be as fast, but might be able to travel several days before they need a proper rest. Some mounts could be sturdier than others. Of course, there's also the matter of how they're acquired. If these are mounts that the player is meant to catch and tame themselves, rather than purchase from the nearest trader, then the mounts could be mechanically the same(for the most part) and which one the player gets just boils down to geography.

Unless, of course, you're a veteran Blackguard and forgot to make sure that the cellar, y'know, actually stays stocked. But yeah, it doesn't matter too much whether the cellar is built from stone or dirt. My usual method is to dig it under the kitchen or otherwise dig it into a hill outside, use stone for the walls and floor and dirt for the ceiling(if I don't use some sort of stone). A simple solid wooden door for the entry point, and oil lamps as needed so I can actually see. I also like to try to vary the textures among the walls, ceiling, and floor, so that the space looks more interesting visually. A cellar devoted exclusively to alcohol can bend the rules a little more though. Alcohol keeps for a long time, so pretty much any interior space will work for storage as long as it qualifies as a room(this can be ignored if it's really strong alcohol).

Apparently they've been teased as one of the new mounts that's coming. Dromedary camels have been, at least. I'm not sure if Bactrian camels are planned or not.

Welcome to the forums! I'm not sure I really follow here. While it would be nice to rotate workpieces around a different axis, to my knowledge workpieces are already shaped like the finished product, albeit simplified for a grid pattern. Sharpening is a feature in 1.22, but only applies to the falx and Blackguard shortsword at the moment. Sharpening boosts the damage for a time at the cost of sacrificing some of the balde's durability. While it would be nice to sharpen other tools in order to increase their work speed, I don't think unsharpened tools should break faster. Just working inefficiently is enough, especially since the player might not want to be sharpening every tool, and it can take a while to get a grinding wheel up and running. While it makes sense, I think more players would find this frustrating rather than fun. I think the current mechanic of the player character automatically ceasing the sharpening once the item is fully sharpened is fine. Maybe, but I'm not sure that players will be keen on swapping between two different tools for what is essentially the same task. Maybe if splitting firewood had to be done manually, but in that case you're asking the player to invest a LOT of time into a rather tedious task. Some players enjoy that kind of immersion, but some players don't exactly want to spend an entire day or two just chopping wood for a charcoal pit(and a sawmill would take a fair amount of time to set up). I think it's better to keep it simplified to just one axe here, and have any secondary axe act more as a weapon rather than a woodcutting tool. While different chisels for different materials are a thing in real life, I think it's better to keep it somewhat simplified for gameplay. Having two different chisels for what's essentially the same basic job can not only confuse/frustrate players, but also bloat the game files. It would probably also make chiseling blocks a real pain due to the fact that multiple different type of material can be fused into a single block. The only chisel variation I actually see working is a chisel(s) specifically for quarrying stone. The current vanilla method is okay, but it would be nice to have a way to quarry more efficiently, as well as perhaps a sledgehammer or something to break single stone blocks down into several smaller stones(ie, a more efficient breakdown method than the pickaxe).

Bombs are probably the fastest ways to do the brunt of the work, although bear in mind they're going to be somewhat expensive and you're still going to need to "polish" the canals manually, as well as fill them. Steel shovels/picks will last a while and let you dig rather fast, but working entirely by hand is also going to be very tedious. Which is to be expected--you're basically digging your very own Panama canal. I'm also not entirely sure that you need to be at sea level--it may be possible to sail a boat up a small incline. I'd recommend testing in creative first. In any case, @Professor Dragon has the best solution, I think. Backup the world and then use the World Edit tool, at least if you want to do such a thing quickly and without much hassle.

That's a connection issue, not a game issue. Unfortunate, and understandably frustrating, but not a good reason for making the game as a whole easier. So make the player work a little harder at building a trap? Currently, all the player is required to do is dig a hole, maybe put a little bait down. While I'm sure that such a trap could potentially catch an animal in real life, there's a reason that pit traps usually need to be disguised. In any case, there's the Stamina Mod, which technically does exactly what's listed in the initial suggestion, and then some. But I don't think that's what you're looking for either.

The removed voxels can't be used to craft a second slab. However, I wouldn't exactly call the removed material "lost" either. It's retained as part of the data for that specific chiseled block and those voxels can be added back at any time.

I believe the temperature resistance depends on the species/variety of cutting specifically, and not what it's grafted to. So tropical trees will still die in climates that are too cold to support them, even if the cutting is grafted onto a cold-hardy tree.

There was a mod for this, but sadly it's out of date. I would like to see this in the game though, and the steppe people of Asia are mentioned in passing, if not by any specific name.

Welcome to the game and forums! The problem with this is that it strips away the player's option to hide during a temporal storm. Sure, burying yourself in a dirt hole or otherwise sitting behind a flimsy door might not be realistic, or particularly fun, but it's a safe option to handle the storm, especially in the early game when the player may not be geared/skilled enough to really tackle the storms head-on. There's also the issue of chiseled blocks. No one wants to go to the effort to chisel nice stuff only to have it torn apart by monsters. However, if you prevent monsters from tampering from chiseled blocks than all you really accomplish is players turning everything into chiseled blocks or otherwise using them to block monster pathing. Technically, this problem can be solved by just allowing these blocks to become "transparent", so that monsters can "phase" through them during temporal storms, but all that really accomplishes is removing the option for players to hide...which brings us back to the first problem. It's not the worst idea, but I think it fits better as a mod and not so much as a vanilla mechanic.

Welcome to the forums! It comes from this mod: https://mods.vintagestory.at/temporalsymphony

I'm guessing this sentiment probably stems from pre-1.22 days, where berry bushes were incredibly overpowered and very easy to manage compared to fruit trees. I'm echoing @MKMoose somewhat here, but the old berry bushes produced more crops per year, didn't require care, didn't have growth times, and could also be stacked in some cases. Fruit trees, in comparison, require time to establish themselves, only produce one crop per year, have specific climate requirements in order to grow, and also have a chance to fail to propagate. The main advantage to fruit trees though is to my knowledge, they can't be raided by wildlife, they tend to be more space-efficient, and the fruit generally has a much longer shelf life. While there might be several players that don't bother with fruit trees, I think there's probably just as many that enjoy having an orchard at their base. I'm guessing more players might also be opting for fruit trees over berry bushes in 1.22 due to not wanting to deal with new berry bush care and growth times. Maybe, but I think there's a reason that this command is hidden, and not part of the world customization options at world creation. Vintage Story does allow players to trivialize a lot, but there also comes a point where it's not really a survival game anymore if the default settings allow the player to basically take the teeth out of all the challenges. Tying fruit trees to crop growth in general is going to end up meaning that to have faster fruit tree growth, the player ends up reducing the timer on all other crops as well...which pretty much results in Minecraft-style farming. A separate setting for fruit tree growth doesn't really feel right either, since drastically shortening it means players are more likely to ignore berry bushes even more in favor of just trivializing fruit trees for convenience. I think a better solution here would be to shorten the growth times of berry bushes, so the player has a choice between something that is easy to cultivate but high-maintenance upfront or something that takes more time to establish productivity but less maintenance. Or just tie fruit tree growth to the tree growth setting, since I mean...they are trees. And I'm guessing players are more likely to want faster growing trees and slower crop growth so food isn't entirely trivial, than they are to want slow-growing trees but "instant" crops.

Just a friendly reminder that blocking users you don't get along with is an option. Starting personal fights on a public forum over a disagreement generally isn't the best idea.

One thing I want to note is that unless there's some legitimate threats to mounts, armor is going to be nothing but cosmetic. And it really shouldn't be. Not that mounts need to suddenly be in danger of dying as soon as you take them out of the stable, but there should be some risks involved if you ride a mount into combat or otherwise encounter dangerous creatures while riding. That way there's some reason behind investing in such armor; it's going to be more expensive than player armor, and pure cosmetics doesn't really justify such expense. Likewise, I think armor should also affect mount speed, similar to how it does for players. It might look cool and be very protective, but it's not necessarily something you want to have equipped all the time.

Basically, when more than half the voxels are gone from the block, it stops qualifying. Pulling from the wiki: https://wiki.vintagestory.at/Room If you don't mind a bit of cheating though, there are glowing blocks in the creative menu that you could add as chiseled accents. I think they should still provide light when chiseled, though I'm not sure since I've not really messed around with them.

If you went through the steps I listed above, it should work. If it's not working, my next question would be are you using mods? Mods can often cause issues, so if you're playing with mods and encountering issues one thing to always check is whether or not the issue can be replicated in vanilla. If you're not using mods though, and are still unable to make stinkbait despite following all the steps correctly, then it's possible you've encountered a bug. In which case you will want to report it on the Github bug tracker. To my knowledge, there aren't any recipes that depend on fresh ingredients. The drawback to using ingredients that have started to spoil though is that the finished product will have a shorter shelf life and less nutrition, if it's something edible. The one exception I can think of is juice--pressing fruit that is spoiling will yield fresh juice. It's also worth noting that the handbook is still a work-in-progress, especially when it comes to newer additions like fishing. Sometimes details get overlooked. As for the wiki, it's maintained by the community, and while it tends to be fairly accurate your mileage will vary. You don't need a clean pot to cook it, but if you only have one cookpot you might not want to cook stinkbait or other non-food items in it, since that will render it unusable for cooking food. Not that it's hard to make another cookpot, but it's not necessarily something you want to be doing after getting the first one dirty.

Welcome to the game and forums! Just to make sure all the bases are covered, you are trying to make the bait in a cookpot and not the crafting grid, yes? The reason I ask is this: You can't put liquids directly into your inventory--they need to be placed into some sort of vessel, whether that be a bucket, jug, or bowl. In order to craft stinkbait, you'll need a piece of raw meat, 1 L of water, and a piece of fennel. Place these ingredients into a cookpot--to place the water, use a bowl or other liquid container and left-click(or possibly right-click) on the first slot to deposit the liquid. A bowl will place liquid in increments of 0.1 L, a jug 0.3 L, and a bucket will place 1 L. Once you have the ingredients in the cookpot, it should list the recipe as valid on the cookpot interface, and you should be able to cook the ingredients to receive 6 stinkbait. Do note that doing this will dirty the cookpot and render it unusable for future meals(though you can continue to cook stinkbait and candles with it). Is the meat actively rotting, or does it simply say "fresh for 2 hours"? You can still use it to cook stinkbait, even if it's not exactly fresh. It does mean the stinkbait won't be as fresh, but the fish won't care. As long as it's not turned to rot it's still usable.

To my knowledge, no. You might be able to place an oil lamp inside the block(although to my knowledge, that isn't possible), but chiseling that much material from the block is going to mean it will no longer qualify as an insulating block when it comes to room calculations.

Right, and that's partly because the player is already faster than many animals, and suffers no real penalty for sprinting. Boars, at least the normal ones, are a rather notorious example of this, since they're a larger animal but easily outrun by the player. Maybe, but I would say it's also due to how easy it is to exploit creature AI. The animals aren't very good at avoiding pits, so it's very easy to just herd them into a pit or otherwise set out some bait(like farms or a full food trough) to lure them in. If injuring an animal made it run slower/run shorter distances, or there was otherwise a blood trail to follow, then pit traps might be less prevalent, but I daresay a lot of players would still use them simply because...it's easy. To push players away from pit traps, animals need to be smarter at staying out of pits. Unless they're in a blind panic, they shouldn't just trot themselves into a hole simply because a potential threat showed up. Likewise, if there's food they obviously can't reach, or that's in an obvious trap, they shouldn't just happily enter their doom; the player should need to disguise the hole with branches or perhaps use a snare instead. Which is a good argument for overhauling the AI for goats, sheep, and deer. Males should be more aggressive, yes, but unless the threat is close enough to warrant a charge, the first instinct for a goat/sheep/deer really ought to be run. They might not really understand how ranged weapons work, but they do understand what a threat is, and that putting distance between themselves and that threat is a good thing. And of course, if the animals are better at avoiding traps and threats, then there's a stronger argument to make them take comparatively fewer shots to kill.

A reasonable solution/explanation to this, in my opinion, is perhaps just make animals avoid monsters and other unnatural entities. Monsters might not attack them, but they're still animate creatures, and ones that don't exactly move, smell, or sound right. Animals might not care about temporal stability since they aren't sensitive to those kinds of forces, but they aren't going to be fans of unnatural things moving around either. As for the player, most animals regard humans as a threat, and seraphs look mostly human. However, they are funny-colored humans and slightly larger, and perhaps smell a little "off" as well, which is probably enough to put most animals more on edge than they would otherwise be around humans. This could also be something the player can ask/comment on to the traders, with the traders offering a shrug and expressing mild surprise that the wildlife is so aggressive to the player. It might not answer all the player's questions, but it at least expresses up front that there's something different about the player versus the NPCs. From there the player can potentially uncover more lore on it, or just make up their own reasoning. One thing I want to note here, that I forgot earlier--if an animal kills the player, it's probably a good idea to have the animal run off. While dying to wildlife is certainly frustrating, I think that's not so much a problem for the player, as it is trying to get their stuff back. It's really frustrating to die, respawn, and try to retrieve your stuff only to find that the bear/wolves/whatever is sitting on it. Yes, there is "keep inventory", but that's not a very satisfying way to play the game for many players. Having the animal move on after a kill is a fair way to handle it without making the game too easy, and feels fairly realistic since animals tend not to enjoy hanging around areas they've recently encountered threats. This is also true, and in fairness I think this should be the standard expected behavior when it comes to player-wildlife interaction. Encountering a wild animal, especially a large one, shouldn't necessarily be an immediate death sentence, but the player should ideally pay attention to their surroundings, be careful with their movements, and avoid close encounters as a general rule if they don't want a fight. If the behavior is too predictable or too lenient, then you end up with players just ignoring the wildlife and doing whatever they please. I expect that when the status effect system is finally implemented, there's going to be a LOT of complaints about it. Exactly what it looks like, I'm not sure, but I do expect that it will make the game as a whole harder, and shake up several systems/mechanics(like sleep, cold, and hunger) that players previously took for granted. That being said, I do expect such a system to make things like animal attacks and fights in general more interesting than the pure numbers game we have currently.

Honestly, it might just be time to set Vintage Story aside and play something else for a while. Or just do something else in the game rather than focus the story on every world. In any case, it's a fun game, but burnout is real, and taking a break every now and then is a good thing. You're definitely not the only one with such sentiments, though I would note that what constitutes "enough points of interest" or "interesting points of interest" varies from player to player. More procedural dungeons are supposed to be coming in later 1.22 versions, at least as far as I'm aware, and those should help spice up world exploration. More flora and fauna would also help, since it's fairly easy at the moment to see most of what the world has to offer within a couple thousand blocks of spawn. One thing I've been mulling over is Morrowind-style navigation. That is, instead of NPCs just giving players a map, and the player navigating from point A to point B, perhaps the NPCs describe landmarks that the player needs to follow to reach certain locations. These landmarks could be relatively minor themselves, but unique enough to stand out from the standard ruins and land generation. For example, from chapter two: Of course, there could still be an option for players to get a map directly to the location. They just might have to supply the parchment for such or otherwise pay a few gears in order to get that kind of thing.

Welcome to the game and forums! It really depends on the server in question. Some prefer vanilla-style survival gameplay, and can vary from "every man for himself" to a cooperative group effort. Some servers are lightly modded, while others are heavily modded. Some don't use mods at all. Some are PvE, some are PvP, and some are focused on roleplaying. Some servers might have lore content enabled, and some might choose to disable lore content entirely or otherwise write their own lore.