LadyWYT

Right, but it's important to consider that the player will need to be able to construct those kinds of doors in order to use them, which will require metalworking at bare minimum. A skilled player can begin metalworking after a couple of days have passed in game, but less experienced players can't necessarily meet those same time requirements, and not every player enjoys pushing that hard either. The early game is also when the hiding strategy is the most valuable, and while players could just dig a hole to hide in, that's not as realistic or as nice as hiding in some sort of shelter. This can definitely be a problem, but I'm not sure that allowing monsters to break down doors is the solution. Several players have suggested just banning monsters from spawning in spaces that qualify as rooms, however, this leads to the issue of the player building a compound of rooms to live in and thus never facing any risk from the storms. The better option is probably to add(or adjust, if it already exists) a limit of how close to the player new monsters can spawn. Enough of a "safe zone" that the player could hide in a room without worrying about something spawning in there with them, or otherwise not need to worry about something spawning on top of them if they choose to fight through the storm.

"FDA" stands for Food and Drug Administration, and it regulates both medicine and food. Fertilizer not so much, but it is indirectly involved in how fertilizer can be used. What you're thinking of might be the USDA(United States Department of Agriculture), which is involved with foodstuffs and agriculture specifically. That being said, I'm also pretty sure that @Facethief was just making a funny.

I think it's also fair to say that sometimes when a game community says they want something, they don't necessarily stop to think of what adding that thing actually means for the game, especially for the long-term. And sometimes the requested feature would be a good addition to the game, but the community's idea(s) on how to implement said feature aren't that great. And of course, sometimes the community feedback just isn't useful; saying "I hate this" or "I want to see X in the game" is feedback, but without any explanation to go with the statements it just becomes an expression of individual preference rather than information the devs can potentially use to improve the game.

Not necessarily. The hitboxes and hit detection absolutely need work, as that's one of the main reasons combat feels so clunky right now. Damage itself doesn't need to be increased if hits can be landed more reliably; increasing player damage also makes enemies much less threatening, while increasing enemy damage can frustrate players more easily since there's not as much room for error. As for adding more "weight" to attacks, that tends to be where sound design factors in. Currently, there's only one basic hit sound, and it doesn't really feel impactful. Shields used to have a similar problem, but were recently changed so that the blocking sound was more noticeable and affected by the shield's material(so metal shields produce a very satisfying metallic THUD when they block a hit). Adding a bit of extra detail to the sound of swinging a weapon or perhaps some metallic ring on impact(when appropriate) would help successful hits feel a lot more satisfying. This might help with some enemies, but I don't think every enemy needs to be that way. Not every enemy needs to hit hard or telegraph their attacks to the extent they can be easily dodged. Some enemies are going to hurt to fight, and the player will need to plan for that. An active hit/block system can be very satisfying to play in many ways, but it can also prove to be frustrating if your reaction time isn't so good. If "character skill" is a factor it can also prove to be an unsatisfying system since it generally can't express a character becoming better at that skill over time. Compare Skyrim to Morrowind as an example. Skyrim's combat can be satisfying because the hit/block system is rather responsive and relies on the player's own skill rather than the character's stats, but as a result characters don't really feel like they're learning anything over time. In contrast, Morrowind can be frustrating at first since low character stats lead to a lot of misses and lower damage, but the system itself can be more satisfying in the long-term since you can actually feel the character becoming better at their job over time. It's good to have non-combat solutions for some encounters, but one drawback of the videogame medium is that solutions often have to be simplified since there's a limit to how many factors can be accounted for. The solutions also need to be at least somewhat engaging, and combat is typically the easiest way to accomplish that. Non-combat solutions, I think, are better left to the realm of NPC interactions, as some sort of player reputation mechanic. The player's class and choice of dialogue/actions can influence how friendly NPCs will be, how easily they could be intimidated, and how cooperative they're inclined to be in general.

Three hundred blocks in Vintage Story is practically nothing, at least in terms of general distances. You don't necessarily need to go thousands of blocks for absolutely everything, but it's not unusual at all to need to trek a couple thousand blocks to find some critical resource, or find a specific thing for decorative purposes. As others have already noted, roads are useful, but they aren't absolutely required for travel. I tend to just build them around my base, both for aesthetics and utility, and will sometimes build roads to nearby traders or other places I visit regularly to make travel easier. For general travel purposes, having a mount is optimal; currently the only mount available in vanilla is the elk, which you can get via trading after completing the first story location or acquire via catching and raising a baby elk. Trading will be much easier, although if you have lore content disabled trading won't be an option.

The devs have already said they're not keen on adding gore to the game, since some members of the team have reservations about depicting that kind of thing. As for myself, I don't like the idea, because not everything has to a gorefest that's thrown in your face. I don't like blatant horror games, and I don't like a lot of gore, and I know I'm not the only player that has these preferences either. Vintage Story itself also is not a horror game; it's a realistic survival game with some elements of eldritch horror in the background. The game, although niche, also tries to appeal to a somewhat general audience, and gore/horror tends to be a very specific demographic. Likewise, splattering blood and gore everything is only good for an immediate shock factor and doesn't tend to stay "scary" because it desensitizes the player rather quickly. However, if the horror elements stay in the background and the details are left up to the player's imagination, then the scenarios are often much more frightening, and remain frightening for a longer period of time, since the imagination is quite often a more terrifying place than reality.

Some sort of alchemist or herbalist would make a lot of sense as a new class, as well as potentially fill the role of support/healer since none of the other classes quite offer that. But a new class like this probably shouldn't be able to make medicines that other classes can't, unless perhaps it's a slightly better version of some healing item that already exists. The reason I say that, is that medicine can be a rather important detail depending on what you're trying to treat, and players still need to be able to complete the main challenges in singleplayer. If certain injuries end up essentially requiring a class-exclusive item to heal in any reasonable time, that's not going to be very fun to deal with. Class items tend to be more of a style choice or a "nice to have, but not critical to gameplay" flavor, and most can also be found/traded for in the world.

How far have you explored? There should be a trader somewhere near the world spawn, though sometimes the little outposts can be difficult to spot, especially in forested or hilly areas. Still, if you explored roughly a 1000 block radius from the world spawn, you should have found at least one or two. However, if you're playing Homo Sapiens mode, or otherwise turned the lore content off, there won't be any traders or other lore content in your world at all. In which case, your only option, outside of turning lore content on, is going to be chiseling patterns into the floor, using dyed leather(you can turn it into decorative sheets), or finding a mod that fulfills what you're looking for. Sediment rock isn't uncommon at all, but depending on the world seed, you may need to travel a few thousand blocks before you see something other than igneous rock. For mortar, you don't necessarily need chalk. Limestone will work just fine, as will marble, though marble is quite rare so if you find it you may want to save it for building. Seashells can be ground into lime(each shell yields two), but this is a rather tedious way to acquire lime if you need a lot of it. If you have lore content enabled, you can also purchase lime from commodities and survival goods traders. Higher fertility soils tend to be in areas with more rainfall. Forests might have it, but you'd need to dig underneath the top layer in order to find out, and forest floor always turns into low fertility soil when dug up. Assuming you're playing on default settings, you probably just need to explore a little more. High fertility soil seems to be a bit random as to when it appears. You won't find it in deserts, but I've seen it in both medium and low fertility areas. It only occurs in small patches though, not whole biomes. Terra preta doesn't exactly occur in the wild, so you'll need to craft it yourself. It is, however, the best soil in the game for farming. I will differ from @Professor Dragon's advice here though: low fertility soil is fine for a first farm if you've got nothing else to work with. The key to remember though is that you'll need to get your crops in the ground earlier so they'll have time to mature before winter arrives, and you'll probably only be able to get one harvest instead of two. As long as you're not past July, a low fertility farm should still be able to produce a yield, as long as you work quickly to set it up. To help make up for its shortcomings, you'll want to make sure it's irrigated, and you'll want to till a larger area since you won't be able to rely on getting more than one harvest out of it before winter. I agree with Professor Dragon's general thoughts here though--the world seed is probably fine, you likely just need to do a lot more traveling. The general rule of thumb I use is to try to explore a couple thousand blocks in each direction from spawn to see what I have to work with. In most cases, most of what I need is within a thousand blocks of spawn, with one or two important resources I may need to travel a little further in order to acquire.

No, that's definitely not supposed to happen. When was the world created? I seem to remember there was a bug very similar to this in one of the 1.22 pre-releases, so if the world was created on one of those unstable versions it's possible that the trader outpost in question doesn't have the area protections that it should. If you are using mods though, it's very possible that one of the mods could by messing up the area protections somehow. The best way to test that is probably to create a world backup in case something goes wrong, then create a copy of the world, disable your mods, and try to test it on vanilla. Make sure you check out known trader posts as well as freshly generated ones. If you can get the behavior to repeat in vanilla, then you know it's not a mod issue. If you can produce the issue with known trader outposts but not with freshly generated ones, and the world was created on an older game version, then it may just be that the protections weren't generated correctly on the older outposts. Regenerating those chunks might solve it, but it might also mess up the outpost as well, not sure. The only other thing I can think to check is make sure that you are in survival mode, and not creative mode. Creative mode will bypass area protections. If you are in survival mode though, and aren't able to reproduce the issue in vanilla, then there's likely mod interfering somehow.

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.