LadyWYT

I'm not sure how feasible this would be to code, but it would be cool to have a few layer options for specific parts of the player model so that players can draw warpaint, tattoos, and scars for their character rather than choosing from a list of presets. The interface could be something as follows: Warpaint - Face - Body - Left Arm - Right Arm - Left Leg - Right Leg Selecting one of the above options would bring up a template the player could draw on, with brush settings for size and transparency, a handful of color presets, a color wheel to get a specific color, an option to save a specific color as a preset, a dropper tool to copy an existing color, an option to save a finished design as a preset for use in future playthroughs, and a preview model so the player can see how the design looks before committing to it. The template could also remove the pixels that will be covered by other parts(such as eyes or limb attachment points), or otherwise outline the parts where the design will be hidden, so that players will have a better idea of where to draw and where not to draw. To allow the player to modify these designs in the world, they could visit the friendly local barber-surgeon, or there could perhaps be some of basic "cosmetic kit" they could use to modify these layers at will.

A fair point, but I think a good part of this is due to how swords and other weapons are simplified in a lot of videogames and other media. Swords are meant primarily for slashing and thrusting, so it's easier to limit the weapon to those attacks since using the sword as a club or bludgeoning things with the pommel isn't going to be the primary course of action in most cases. But I do think that opting for the easier route is a missed opportunity to make swords and such more interesting weapons. I don't think it would be much of a problem. A mace or other weapon meant for bludgeoning will be outputting much more blunt damage than a sword pommel ever could. Likewise, those weapons could ignore armor more easily, break bones, or have a higher chance to stun targets for longer periods of time. In contrast, allowing a pommel attack option for swords makes them stronger as a general-purpose weapon and can potentially provide some interesting combat options(smack something with the pommel to confuse for a split-second, giving you just enough time to get in an uncontested attack or make a break for safety), but you're not necessarily going to want to tackle a bell with it or use the blade on locusts when you could smash them with the pommel. On the latter, a Blackguard might still get away with one-shotting locusts with a slash or stab, but other classes could have the option of using the sword pommel to kill the locusts in a single hit since they're weak to blunt damage.

Questions that can't be answered, because the effects that ingredients have are tied to the individual player AND the world seed. It's therefore not possible to learn what an ingredient does and then use that knowledge in future playthroughs without playing the exact same world seed, nor is it possible to share your knowledge with other players since the effects they get will be entirely different. It'd be like trying to play Elder Scrolls alchemy, but the ingredient effects are completely random for each character file. In Skyrim, you can combine butterfly wings with blue mountain flowers to get a healing potion, and have that as a solid option for early game healing potions in every playthrough. However, when the effects are always randomized, then you can't reliably make any potions at all until you've sunk hours into a single save file just figuring out which ingredients do what...and then you get to repeat that process every time you make a new character. No writing notes, no remembering what does what, no looking up information to figure out good combinations, because none of that applies to a new game. Like @Teh Pizza Lady said--it's a good idea for a mod, since there are some players who might enjoy that as a one-time challenge, and a mod lets players opt in to playing that way without changing the game for everyone else. But when you go changing the vanilla game itself, then you're expecting everyone to play that way by default, since that's not the kind of system you just toggle on/off in the game settings.

Sure, but it doesn't make sense to limit that attack to being a purely defensive reaction. My argument is that it should be an aggressive action, and one the player is able to use easily enough if they need/choose to, but not an attack that's going to do the same damage as a weapon actually specialized for blunt damage. It's definitely possible to land backwards attacks, but it's a very clunky system in my experience. While trying to backpedal while fighting is an awkward maneuver anyway, I don't think it's one that should feel awkward to the player to execute. The awkwardness is part of the reason I don't even bother with those attacks most of the time in Skyrim, despite the benefits. It tends to be a waste of time and resources since the attacks are fairly tough to land and it's easy to shift yourself out of position while doing said attacks. Eh, maybe. But I can think of a few scenarios where I might want to be bashing with the pommel and not using the blade. Fighting locusts and most other mechanical creatures, for one. Doing non-lethal damage to a target for another; not necessarily to knock the target out(and potentially rob it), but giving it a stern smack to make it run away and stop bothering me. Or to potentially confuse it for a split second so I can stab it. Also to pester my hunter friend without actually hurting said hunter. Edit: Pommel bashing is also a decent way to avoid dulling the blade, so it could be used as a way to deal with smaller threats and save the cutting edge for more serious ones.

I mean if they aren't quitting, they're going to be submitting bug reports and complaints about how they aren't getting the same buffs as their friends despite eating the exact same meal. Imagine being the one guy in a group of friends who doesn't get any useful buffs because none of the local ingredients happened to be what the game decided his character enjoys.

Damage types are meant to help push players to use different strategies every so often, as well as meant to help different equipment choices actually feel different. For example, a piercing weapon like a spear or bow would be quite strong against wild animals, but struggle against mechanical enemies since they're made of metal. A mace would be really good against metal enemies since it can crush the metal parts, but might not be a good choice for confronting a bear since flesh and hide is squishy and can absorb the impact. For games with magic systems, it means playing a frost mage build will give you a distinct advantage against opponents that are weak to frost, but means you're going to suffer if you fail to account for enemies that are resistant/immune to frost damage. That could mean learning a couple of basic spells that do other damage, or it could mean using scrolls, potions, or buying a weapon specifically for that encounter. To use TES games as an example here--in Skyrim, undead creatures are immune to frost and poison damage, but are weak to fire and holy damage. Holy damage won't hurt living creatures so spells and enchantments that deal that kind of damage aren't something you'll use all the time, but it can be useful to have a few "turn undead" scrolls or a weapon with that enchantment with clearing a barrow or vampire lair. Characters that choose to specialize in that kind of magic will be exceptionally good at battling undead creatures. In previous TES games, ghosts could only be damaged by spells, enchanted weapons, or silver weapons, which meant that more martial characters would need to invest in specialized weapons or spell scrolls every now and then. For a Vintage Story context, I would still expect the player to be able to take pretty much any standard weapon into most encounters and still be able to win. It's just that they might struggle with some encounters more than others depending on their choice of equipment.

Welcome to the forums! From the recent news post:

It's not the smoothest, but it does allow the player control over what kind of damage they're doing, and perhaps acts as a bit of a balance. That being said...most tools that have different modes only have a couple of modes available, so it probably wouldn't be too hard to turn F into a simple toggle rather than bring up a full menu. The one exception is the chisel, which should still retain the menu due to how the item is used. This is probably why Skyrim's combat is set up the way that it is. Forwards/backwards tends to focus on a single target, while sideways can create a sweep attack with the right weapon. The best thing about charging at a target with a power attack is that while the attack can do a lot of damage if it hits...it's very easy to miscalculate and have the momentum carry you past the target. In which case, your backside is going to be wide open for a counterattack while you take a couple of seconds to recover. I think I would still prefer some sort of key-cycle rather than directional input here. The reason I say that is that forwards and sideways attacks are easy enough to land, but backwards attacks are actively moving you away from the target, if only a little bit. Striking with the blade it's not a big deal, since the pointy end has a lot more reach, but trying to strike with the pommel means you need to be fairly close to hit the target since you're not using the full reach of the sword. So either the range of the pommel strike ends up unrealistic, or the attack itself winds up useless because the benefits just aren't worth the difficulty of trying to land the attack. Yes, the elk will still be a bit faster, but that's why I said about the same time. The stance animation could change depending on what weapon mode is selected. Using the sword as the example again--when slashing is selected, the current default hold animation could be used. When thrusting is selected, the character could lower the sword's point and hold the weapon back slightly. When bashing is selected, the character could hold the sword higher, with the pommel facing forward. It also removes adding a more streamlined block/parry system to right-click. Overall I do like the write-up, but I would be concerned about the sharpness stat getting confused with the sharpness the grinding wheel adds. Sharpness is sharpness, but the base sharpness value isn't quite the same thing as the bonus the grinding wheel adds.

I was mulling it over earlier about various damage types, and one general drawback of such systems is that blunt and piercing damage end up being incredibly useful in certain scenarios while slashing damage tends to be resisted by everything. In some ways it makes sense--swords are a staple weapon and you want to encourage players to pick different weapons from time to time, and slashing damage is also a little easier to mitigate and serves as a solid "general purpose" damage type. However, it can also be a little disappointing to stick to a slashing weapon as your main choice, and never really have a chance for that choice to shine. What could give slashing weapons their own special niche though, I think, is different damage modes. Take the sword for example--a sword is often used for cutting, but it can also be used for stabbing or even as a club. From a game balance standpoint, a sword might do slashing damage by default, but could also have modes for piercing and blunt damage rather than slashing. Piercing damage could be about the same as slashing, but with a much smaller hitbox than a slashing attack, meaning that the player will need to be more precise with their attack in order to actually do the damage. Blunt damage could be rather low, so the sword isn't going to outclass proper blunt weapons, but it's there if you really need it for some reason. Daggers could operate in a similar fashion to swords regarding damage. Axes could be somewhat similar, but rather than have two different damage modes they could instead have their total damage split between slashing and blunt. And of course, the falx specifically should probably deal some bonus damage to non-mechanical monsters, since in the lore it's supposed to be more effective at fighting the unnatural.

Perhaps give the heavier armors a noise penalty, so enemies will notice those players more? Additionally, there could probably be some sort of check to make certain enemies prioritize attacking the closest targets, especially if those targets are actively attacking them. After all, it's difficult to ignore a big armored individual that keep poking you with a sharp object. The noise penalty also gives more trade-off to having that level of protection; you might be able to shrug off most attacks while wearing plate armor, but you'll also get more unwanted attention as well.

I agree that dodging shouldn't be more than a block or two, since that equates to about a step. A roll would use more distance, but a roll is not a move you want to make if you can avoid it, since it's easy to mess up and leaves you more open to attack. I-frames I wouldn't worry about too much, really; if I'm not mistaken those tend to be more heavily abused by speedrunners and minmaxers, and not so much the average player. As for the cooldown...that I'm not sure. I think a stamina cost might be more appropriate here. That way the player can spam the ability if they really want, but doing so will limit how much stamina they have to use for other things, like more dodges, running away, chasing enemies, stronger attacks, etc. Vigor handled stamina cost rather nicely, in that it would recover fairly fast under typical circumstances, but if you drained too much stamina from the meter than you would become a little sluggish and stamina would recover much more slowly until you took a proper rest. Pretty much. Dodging and parrying are most useful when dueling an opponent that's a similar size to oneself. It can still be somewhat useful against an onslaught or larger opponents, since blocking partial damage is better than blocking no damage, but its usefulness drops off rather quickly. For facing multiple opponents at once, the better tactic is probably to armor up with plate and use a shield, or perhaps a polearm/greataxe/greatsword to control the space nearby. You're still going to take some hits, but if you can make good use of the available space and effectively force the enemies into dealing with you a few at a time rather than all at once, you should be able to survive. Alternatively, this would also be a good scenario to use a scrap bomb or other AoE weapon. Large enemies are going to be tough to deal with because they don't need numbers to make your life difficult. A large enemy will typically be stronger and have more health, potentially more armor as well. They can also have more reach, making it easier for them to hit you than it is for you to hit them, and that extra reach can make a big difference in a fight. Likewise, if they're much stronger than you are, dodging their attacks is going to be a better option than trying to parry or block, since both of those options require absorbing or redirecting the incoming attack force.

I would be inclined to agree if not for the fact that you can achieve leather without touching bronze or borax. A copper pick can mine rock, and limestone, chalk, marble, and seashells can all be ground into lime, or the player can purchase lime from certain traders. Borax is just more efficient for leatherworking. It could just be an oversight, as that does happen, but it could be as Michael Gates was suggesting--a skill check to help push players to bronze before they start messing with more advanced stuff. If that is the case, it would be similar to quartz in that regard; the player can make glass without actually needing to mine quartz, but it's going to be rather tedious relying on the surface bits and whatever the player can pan or find as loot.

I don't think any of the monsters are really capable of eating food. Not that they have to be capable of eating it in order to beg for it, but it doesn't really make much sense. Likewise, making them more passive pretty much removes them as a threat. I wouldn't mind it if they perhaps had lower perception than other monsters, since drifters don't strike me as particularly intelligent, and thus weren't likely to notice players crouched/sneaking nearby. However, monsters should be creatures that are unnaturally aggressive. As for the locust throwing--it's definitely funny, but also not really needed since locusts already have a spring attack. That being said, it does remind me of this mod: https://mods.vintagestory.at/drifterbombs Not that drifters need to be tossing bombs, but...the mental image is hilarious, and if it were a rare occurrence for tougher drifters they would definitely be a more concerning threat. I'm not sure the player should be able to aim them like that. They're animate creatures, unnatural and fairly large, and not likely to be forced into service like that without some intense struggling. And the time the player takes attempting to subdue it is time that the player can't react to other threats in the area. Locusts I would actually push a bit further in this regard, potentially. Or at least, add a clingy variant that accomplishes this idea, since the strength of standard locusts is numbers(which is more than enough). But instead of just weighing down the player, they would actively be drilling through whatever armor the player is wearing. They might not do much damage themselves, but the idea is to wreck the armor and leave the player open to more serious attacks, if the player doesn't deal with the locusts. The problem is figuring out a good way to get the locusts off of yourself. You can't really see your own body outside of immersive first person mode, and you can't slam yourself against the walls to dislodge hitch-hikers either. Bears I wouldn't mind seeing be a little more defensive than aggressive, in return for making polar bears specifically more aggressive. The reasoning there is a defensive bear will still be very dangerous, but will be a little easier for players to deal with, especially new players. Polar bears, however, are one of the few animals that take the concept of "people food" literally, so they would be inclined to stalk a player in order to get a good meal. Also worth noting that bears enjoy a variety of food, not just meat, so if the player was carrying a lot of food the bear would be happy to eat most of it. Fear of fire could apply to many wild animals in general, not just wolves. Waving a torch might be a crude early game solution, but the player could perhaps have access to some kind of flare later. Flares could be better at spooking animals, as well as potentially used to confuse certain monsters. I'm not a fan of Zelda games by any means, but I do think they serve as a good example of what kind of combat is perhaps a good fit for VS. It's complex enough to offer the player some interesting options, as well as chances to improve their skills, without being so complex that the player is going to struggle to jump back into the game should they take a break for a while. The hitboxes are easily the biggest problem with combat right now. It's pretty easy to clip into the hitboxes of larger entities(like bears) and be unable to hit them, while they can still hit you. There's also been times that I've been standing right in front of an attacking enemy and somehow not been hit, despite the fact that there was no way the hit could have missed. Short steps backwards or to the side is all dodging really is. I do think dodging and parrying should be able to be performed consistently enough for the player to rely on as primary defense, but only if the player puts in the effort to master the timing, and only in situations where dodging and parrying would actually be decisive. That is, you're not going to parry a charging rhino or eidolon slap--you can try, but you'll learn pretty fast why that's not the appropriate action to take. Same case with dodging--you need to be both dodging in the right direction and be able to put enough distance between you and the opponent for the attack to miss. So you might be able to sidestep an arrow or small rock, or a surface drifter's swing, but you probably aren't going to dodge the sawblade arm of a nightmare drifter or a hail of projectiles fired at you. So yeah, in the right circumstances, a well-timed dodge or parry could absolutely be the factor that determines whether you survive the fight or hit the respawn button. But that's also part of the appeal of such mechanics. It also feels quite satisfying when you finally master the timing enough to dodge and parry incoming attacks consistently.

Welcome to the game and forums! When joining a server, only clientside mods will continue to function, and even then that's only if the server allows modded clients, I believe. Otherwise, the mod will need to be installed on the server in order for players to be able to use it. Now if you can't see the handbook information at all when you try to play on the server, not even after giving it a few moments to load--that's a different mod. Try disabling your mods and then log in to the server to see if the issue still occurs. If the game starts functioning normally, then there's mod interference somewhere. The first thing to check in that case is making sure all your mods are updated properly for 1.22, since code changes broke a lot of older mods. Otherwise, the easiest way to find a problem mod is to re-enable them one by one and test each time you do so--when the problem reappears you will know exactly which mod caused it.

Knapster is the culprit--you seem to be using an outdated version. 1.22 introduced changes in the code that broke a lot of older mods. Luckily, Knapster is updated for 1.22, so updating the mod to the correct version should fix the problem.

They can be somewhat persistant, but as a general rule I've not found it difficult to outrun them with a few moments of sprinting either. Though I do think it's fair to say that if situations like this did prove to be a big problem, creature AI could be tweaked so that bears will charge a player but not necessarily pursue. In that case, the player can still run away, even if their stamina reserves aren't entirely full, but if they were careless and pushed to the point of exhaustion upon encountering the bear then they're probably in for a rough time. I do agree that the Archive is designed the way that it is currently in order to push the player to make one trip on foot before they get a mount and ride around everywhere. That being said, acquiring a mount is similar to animal domestication--not an easy thing to do, even with the recent adjustments to creature tameness. So I would still expect going by foot to be the most expedient option for the first chapter, but players who want to acquire a mount first shouldn't experience that much of a delay. In some ways, that time delay can work in the player's favor--while they work on catching and taming a mount, they could also be working on better gear or stockpiling better medical supplies or other consumables. Newer players could be nudged toward focusing on surviving the winter and improving their skills as they work to tame the mount, meaning that they'll be able to handle the challenges in the Archive more easily. When it comes to chapter two, it definitely makes having a mount a more attractive option for travel. Currently, you can cover the distance on foot in about the same time as you can on the elk, partly due to the fact that if you're on foot you don't really need to make a detour around dense forest or rough terrain.

Oh I'm not suggesting that it should be taken away, just that it might be a good idea to introduce a resource for quick movements like that so the player needs to think a little more carefully about what they're doing. Basically, the player can sprint around for a while before they run out of stamina and need to rest for a few moments to recover, or they can use chunks of stamina to dodge incoming attacks. However, moving at full sprint all the time might not be the best idea, since encountering a tough opponent at low stamina means the player wouldn't be able to dodge effectively or run away. Likewise, dodging several attacks within a short time might mean the player takes no damage, but also has no stamina to retreat if they decide the fight isn't in their favor. In most scenarios though, the player is likely to be starting the fight at full stamina, so they can fight or run as they see fit. The Vigor mod is a decent example of how a stamina mechanic could work. I would also add that by practicing certain actions consistently, the player could decrease the stamina cost of things like sprinting and dodging, allowing them to do more of those actions before they need a proper rest, provided that they stay in practice of course. For sure, however, in some ways I do think it's a little more interesting, as well as realistic, to need to stop for a rest or rely more on walking rather than just sprinting everywhere and calling it a day. That being said, it would make mounts a more attractive choice, since a mount could run faster and longer before needing a rest. And if mounts are easier to acquire, the trip isn't going to be as rough(plus the player will appreciate having the saddlebag space). In regards to foot travel, it would certainly make setting up campsites and outposts a more valuable investment, since you couldn't just sprint day and night to reach a destination.

We do, it's just a matter of sprinting and getting the timing of the action just right. However, it's a rather overpowered action at the moment, since the player can sprint indefinitely and moves at the same speed in any direction. In reality, moving forward should be the fastest action, while moving to the side should be slower and moving backwards should be the slowest action. Not every action needs to use stamina, but having some sort of stamina meter to govern how long the player can sprint or perform quick movements would help push the player to consider certain actions more strategically. When the meter is full, the player can sprint or make quick movements to dodge certain attacks, but if their stamina is low then their movements may become too sluggish to dodge effectively, and they may not be able to make a hasty retreat. I think Valheim's system worked sort of like that, but I think that might be a little too complex for what Vintage Story should be. In Valheim making attacks and blocking attacks would both consume stamina, if I recall correctly, and I think it's probably better to allow the player to attack and block freely, and only add resource cost to quick movements. Parrying would be a good feature to have as a defense for those times when you need to carry something other than a shield in your off-hand slot, though it would definitely be an action that you have to really nail the timing in order to make use of. I would also say that blocking with a shield will generally be the safer choice, since a shield will soak up at least some damage while a parry will really only work to prevent specific kinds of attacks. That is, you can block a charging beast or hit from a very large creature, and possibly still walk away from the encounter(albeit with injuries), but you're not gonna attempt to parry that kind of incoming damage and still expect to live. For the attacks that parrying is very effective against, the player could probably avoid the damage since they're redirecting the attack rather than absorbing the impact; in this case, the player has a reason to forgo the shield and rely purely on their skills, since they can potentially avoid more damage overall as long as they get the parry timing right. Could make for some very fun(or very frustrating) PvP duels. Critical damage and crowd control tend to go hand-in-hand, and it opens the possibility of playing sneaky assassin types as well as support characters that don't do much damage themselves, but lock down the battlefield to allow allies an easier fight. That being said...it's also pretty easy to screw up the balance of sneak attacks and crowd control--Skyrim stealth archer, anyone? For Vintage Story, crowd control is probably the better way to handle it, since a crippled target is easier to damage. However, it should work both ways--the player might have options to lock down targets, but some enemy types could be built for the same tasks. I played a deepsplit shiver like this for VS tabletop thing--while the creature would absolutely do damage, my general strategy was to have it pick a target, grapple it, and thus lock down that character and prevent them from doing much of anything until the grapple was broken. Absolutely terrifying when you consider that shivers are also big enough to drag around most targets. Critical damage probably only works for specific entities by giving the player a specific area that is difficult to hit but does more damage(like attacking an eidolon's eye rather than the creature's body). Stealth, I think, should be geared more toward going unnoticed by targets, and not critical damage. Going unnoticed already provides a combat advantage by allowing the player to get the first hit, or allowing enemies to get a hit or two in before the player can react. I don't think it really needs to be more complicated than that. Maybe, but I also agree with @DarkGold here--inventory is going to be a concern and players aren't going to be keen on trying to carry around a weapon for every occasion, essentially. I think it makes sense to give some enemies more or less resistance to specific types of damage, but overall the falx should be the king of monster-hunting, and players will probably enjoy being able to pick a weapon they enjoy the flavor of rather than always having to do the math on the weapon they actually need, if that makes sense. Armor though...yes, the armor type should be a definite factor in which types of damage and injuries the player can effectively resist and which they'll be more vulnerable to. In this case, the player's choices are a little more interesting, since more protective armor tends to be heavier and can restrict certain movements(like the ones needed for archery), while lighter armor can grant more freedom of movement but have more serious consequences if one gets hit. I think it would be fine on servers, providing that one has a good connection to said server. Players with connection issues are more likely to get frustrated, though that's kind of a given in most scenarios involving connection problems.

Don't forget decorating with copper either. If you use the copper roofing material, it'll get fairly expensive; same for chiseling copper accents since it currently takes five plates to make a block...at least, I think. There are mods that offer cheaper options, but complex chiseling is still a resource sink.

Fishing is a little hit or miss. The two most important factors are making sure the hook is baited, and that you're fishing in a spot that has fish(that is, what the game considers populated, and not physical fish you can see). If the hook is baited, the fish should bite fairly fast, and if they don't then I generally take that as my cue to go elsewhere. It's also going to be the best way to catch trophy fish if you want to hang them on the wall as decoration.

Honestly, I think that's what sells a lot of people on Vintage Story, including those from the younger generations. Yes, some end up not liking the game because it isn't fast-paced enough, and several definitely get frustrated by the pacing when they first try it. But I think a good chunk of the younger audience, once they stop and consider the slower angle, end up enjoying the slower game pacing(both of VS and other older games), because it allows them room to breathe and gives them permission to stop and think, rather than try to push them along into "the next big thing". There's not that many modern spaces that encourage that kind of thought anymore.

What makes you think that players won't default to a single recipe with this system? They'll find something that's useful and then stick to that, especially if they can't just change their buff on a whim. And what do you tell new players when they want to know how to make a meal to boost their strength? There's no answer other than "just throw things in the cookpot and see what happens", which isn't a satisfying answer if you want specific information. Other gameplay loops you can describe the steps in detail, so new players know exactly what to look for and what to do in order to get a desired outcome. It's a videogame, not real life. Letting players customize their characters tends to give them more attachment to said characters; if you hand them a premade character sheet and they don't like what they were handed, then they stop playing and move on to a different game. Not to mention that if the game decides your character's preferences are all foods that don't exist in your current climate band, then you're screwed for the entire game unless you travel tens of thousands of blocks to a climate that supports the foodstuffs your character likes. And there's no way to figure that out until you've been able to experiment with everything, because the effects are still random and there's no way to know what does what. For those who really want to play that way though, there is a mod for that: https://mods.vintagestory.at/show/mod/46016 I shouldn't have to say this, but creating a base and linking it with another is a huge investment, especially for bases that are in different climate bands entirely. It takes days of travel to go from one band to another; translocators can shorten the trip but those are very dicey on where they will actually take you. Likewise, certain foodstuffs require a lot of time to actually acquire--orchards require a couple in-game years to start producing. I don't think players are going to be thrilled about needing to do this just because the RNG shafted them on meal preferences. Right, and it's a tool that's very easy to misuse. There's a reason that RNG systems are often some of the most hated design features of games; when the system is based on pure chance and luck the player isn't able to use their knowledge and skills to get the outcome they want. And the problem is that when you give something a direct buff to using, then it starts to be considered a necessity. Sure, you can choose not to use the item, but you're not going to be playing at the same potential you could be if you had that item. Multiplayer applies even more pressure on that front, since no one likes to feel like the lesser player in the party, and being stronger means you can win fights and gather resources more effectively. And of course on the roleplaying front a system like this is a disaster because players are no longer allowed to write their own characters. I will also note that players don't need more incentive than their own personal preferences to pursue meal variety. Most players don't like to eat the same two meals for the entire game, and prefer to cook various things to keep the gameplay fresh. Some players prefer pure efficiency and will stick to one or two meals only, which is also fine--they should be allowed to do that. Some players might want to roleplay a character that loves blueberry pie or prefers a simple diet of pot pie, cheese, and currant wine, and that's perfectly fine too. If you look at the various food mods on the ModDB to get an idea of what players look for in a food system, Expanded Foods is by far and away the most popular food mod, and all it does is add more ways to cook meals and more foods to cook. Wildcraft is right up there with it, and all that mod does is add a bunch of new food crops to find and grow. Mods that add more buffs to consuming specific meals also exist, like Gourmand and the one I linked above, and have a respectable download count, but it's nowhere NEAR the numbers that Expanded Foods and Wildcraft have. To me that suggests that players don't need a distinct benefit attached to the food in order to cook it--they like variety and will choose that option themselves. However, if you go attaching specific buffs to the food, then you're removing that choice and pushing them to eat specific things instead of just letting them cook what they actually want to eat.

I'm certainly not against the team getting paid more, but more money does not always equal faster content development. People can only work so fast.

With all due respect...bigger teams don't necessarily mean better games or faster production. Triple A studios have big teams and lots of money, but have been producing several flops, at a fairly slow rate. In contrast, indie developers have much smaller teams and less money, but have been producing successful games in shorter times. Not everything needs to be a global brand either. When it comes to videogames, it's better to appeal to a specific target audience and focus on making things that keeps that audience happy. Not everyone likes the same thing, so the wider you cast your net the more you'll need to water down the product trying to appeal to different types of customers. And since it's not possible to please everyone, you'll eventually end up with a product that no one really wants, let alone gets excited about.

Yeah, I'm still not getting it. What I see is that sure, the combinations might technically be different, but ultimately it's just a more complicated numbers game of figuring out which ingredients give the best value and then sticking exclusively to that recipe. Not to mention that the player can roll poorly when they cook the meal and thus not get the full benefit--this is already a feature of the quenching system when the workpiece snaps thanks to rolling poorly, and players are already frustrated with that. I can't imagine them being thrilled about getting a sub-par benefit just because RNG decided they botched cooking a meal. To be perfectly honest, I've never played that game and don't know much about it, and the explanation attempts I have seen about its mechanics don't make me keen on playing something like it. This right here is an absolute NO. Not only is it going to be a massive pain in the rear to have to figure out all the recipes every single time I start a new world, but that's also going to make it very difficult to answer questions that newer players might have about food since there's just no way to know what's attached to what. I can't say that meat pie is the best food for fighting if it gives a strength bonus in one world but a stability bonus in another. I also like to pick out my own character's personal preferences--that's a major part of the fun of roleplaying! Choice of diet can say a lot about a character, and if the game is the one deciding what the character does and doesn't like, then it's not really me getting to write a character anymore, as much as it is just being handed a premade character sheet to play. Unless you deliberately crank up the hunger rate, or otherwise wear armor/carry stuff in your off-hand to crank up the hunger rate...the player doesn't really eat that many meals a day. And if the meals are giving distinct buffs to various activities, players are absolutely going to want those buffs, and get upset when they can't switch buffs because they aren't hungry. It's why Valheim had the bukeperry item--to allow players to reset their food benefits as needed rather than needing to wait several minutes for the buff to wear off so they could eat something else. That's not even getting into what such a system is going to inflict on players who decide to turn the hunger rate down...that's going to cause all kinds of frustration. Yes, Vintage Story does require some planning in advance, but use of consumables to get buffs shouldn't be something that requires advance planning. It should be something you're able to do on the spot as long as you have the appropriate item. There seems to be conflicting information here. I'm guess the idea is that the player can keep eating cooked bushmeat even if they aren't hungry and still get the associated benefit, but with a shorter timer? If that is the case, what ends up happening is players will just be constantly snacking in order to get buffs, without any real penalty for habitual overeating. Given that Vintage Story is currently weighted toward pushing the player to stay well-fed and manage their activities carefully to avoid burning precious calories...I don't think it's a good idea to push players into doing things like running around in plate armor or hurting themselves to burn off hunger just because they want to stack/switch buffs. The various hunger penalties exist so that the player isn't just using the off-hand as a free inventory slot or otherwise running around in a full suit of plate for maximum protection.