LadyWYT

I don't think it's exclusively a sandbox game issue, as much as it is just a facet of current culture. Every time a new life sim comes out, it's immediately touted as a Sims killer. Every time a new MMO launches, it's lauded as a WoW killer. I suspect at least some of this sentiment is driven by the fact that many videogames just aren't what they used to be, and many games are designed to maximize profits and playtime rather than offer players actual value for their money. Players shouldn't need to buy several different packages just to get a complete game to play, and more hours required to complete a game doesn't always make said game more fun.

I betcha the firebrick door is the problem. Try putting a wooden door on it and see if that fixes things.

For monsters, you may want to set a grace timer to stop them from spawning for the first few days. You can find the setting under the "Player spawn and death" tab in the customization options when creating a world. Do note that rifts will still spawn with a grace timer enabled, but will not actually produce monsters. Under the "Temporal stability" tab you can find options to make the interval between temporal storms longer, as well as the option to turn off temporal rifts entirely(and thus prevent most surface monster spawns) if you wish. Creature aggression in general can be adjusted with the "Creature hostility" option in the "Survival challenges" tab. Aggressive is the general default and means that hostile creatures like bears and monsters will attack when they notice you. Passive means that creatures won't attack you unless you attack them first. Never hostile, of course, means that creatures just won't fight back. You might also consider turning up the number of hit points you start with, and/or turning down the overall creature strength. While neither option affects creature aggression, more health and less creature damage will make fights much more forgiving. As far as not spawning on top of a mountain or in a pit...generally, the game won't place you in either position, though it does happen occasionally. If it happens, I would chalk it up to bad luck and either work with it if the world looks interesting enough, or just mulligan until you get something that looks more interesting. Biomes in Vintage Story do not work like biomes in Valheim or Minecraft. Vintage Story takes a more realistic approach and the biomes will depend heavily on latitude and yearly rainfall. The further north you go, the colder it gets, and traveling south will take you to more tropical regions. More rainfall will produce more fertile soil, while less will result in deserts. Mountains, hills, and forests can be found pretty much anywhere in the world. To be fair, Vintage Story has a very steep learning curve and it catches many new players off guard. As I said before, most information the player needs is present in the guide, but the player needs to dig through the handbook themselves and figure things out. Once you start getting used to what the game generally requires of players and what settings you like the play on, it starts to feel a lot more approachable. Don't be shy about asking for help on the forums either if something is unclear or you aren't sure how to tackle certain parts of the game. Most of us have been through the same set of struggles while learning to play and are more than happy to share advice on how to beat the challenges.

Honestly I think that could make for a great, if niche, RPG. Evil actions don't usually have proper punishments since it makes the game unplayable for evil characters, but I think an RPG that had stiff punishments could be very interesting. I think it would mean evil characters would need to start off with petty crimes and build their skills up before they can expect to be true villains, making an evil playthrough a proper challenge.

You should try Expanded Foods, if you haven't yet. One of the things it adds is actual wine bottles, wine racks, wine barrels, and wine aging. Use with Wildcraft for even more beverage-making fun! Does it come with those legendary cheese curds?

I'm mainly against it because I'm skeptical/resistant to change to begin with, but also because I think the current system is just fine. As @Zane Mordien noted, it's simple to understand and deal with once one learns what the gear is indicating. I also suspect that outside of major happenings like temporal storms, temporal stability as a whole is something that really only affects seraphs and other unnatural entities, and not so much plants, wildlife, or humans. It's a quality I quite like when it comes to the worldbuilding, as to me it makes the unnatural stuff actually feel unnatural and a bit more interesting when encountered. If the rifts were just popping out corruption everywhere and ghosts were appearing in ruins and the like(that is, the unnatural becomes a common experience rather than something mostly in the background), it'd stop feeling like a natural world that has a definite underlying problem, and just feel like a standard fantasy setting.

Honestly, I figure players themselves are probably the best way to catch translation errors. Professionals are expensive, and there are many languages to account for. It's also quite easy to make mistakes with languages that aren't one's native tongue...although it's also easy to make mistakes even as a native speaker, depending on the language. Not that players should have to do all the translation work, but I do think that players will also have the best context for what's actually going on in the game.

Vintage Story is not Minecraft. The two often get compared to each other since both have blocky graphics, but they're nowhere near the same game. Trying to play Vintage Story by Minecraft rules is a recipe for disaster. Did you play the tutorial to learn the basic controls and read through the handbook guides? Vintage Story doesn't really hold the player's hand and lets the player figure out for themselves the best way to progress. The handbook holds most information the player needs to know about various gameplay concepts, and while it is possible to progress without consulting the handbook it's probably not going to be a good time. I will also note that most gameplay settings can be tweaked--creature aggression, world climate, starting climate, health, hunger rate, tool durability, etc. The default gamemode is Standard and balanced for a variety of playstyles, and while it's the one I would recommend for first time players, it may be tougher than what some want to play. Exploration mode is the better pick, in that case. Wilderness Survival and Homo Sapiens are the hardest preset difficulties and not recommended for new players at all. Music can be adjusted in the settings menu at any time, both for volume and track intervals. Overall, it sounds like Vintage Story isn't your cup of tea, which is totally fine! The good news is that the developers have a generous refund policy, and you can request a refund here: https://www.vintagestory.at/support/

I'll add lion's mane jellies and siphonophores to the mix, as well as tripod fish and telescope fish.

I always seem to forget that distinction. It probably doesn't help when I'm writing posts while tired. Honestly not a fan of changes like this. Temporal storms and instability in general are specifically bad things that the player is supposed to avoid. If the player gets distinct benefits from them, like tools getting repaired or crops growing faster, then players are going to be actively settling in those areas instead of avoiding them. Likewise, it also removes fixing instability/fixing the world as an option for the main story's potential conclusion; why would the player want to fix something that they actively benefit from? The most I can really say otherwise is that if a change like this happens, then the opposite effects absolutely need to be just as possible. That is, if tools can be repaired, then they can also be damaged. Crops could grow faster, but also grow slower, etc. This one is still a "maybe" for me. Overall, I think I still prefer the gear rather than actually changing the environment too much. Another "maybe". I'd be more in favor of this than directly changing the environment to indicate instability, though I'm still not sure that this will fix more problems than it creates. Static zones can be more punishing to new players who aren't aware of the mechanic and settle in an unstable area, but constantly changing zones seems like it would be just as confusing. New players will probably be asking how to stop the instability, and in that case there isn't a solution outside of maybe some late game Jonas tech they have to build and power. Personally, I prefer static zones, as it's nice to have a guaranteed stable area to just chill out in when I don't want to do anything particularly dangerous. Static zones also make it very easy for me to learn which areas I need to spend limited time in, and which areas I can safely camp in. Changing zones...depending on how often it changes, it seems like there's the distinct possibility of players getting very unlucky and moving with the instability, and thus never having a chance to recover outside of sacrificing gears. I would actually suggest reducing the stability recovery rate, and perhaps adding small pockets of heavy instability at the surface. Currently, loss of stability doesn't mean a lot, since it's quite easy to stand in a stable area for a few seconds and be back at 100%. I think it's fine if the player can hang around for a day or two in light unstable areas before needing to leave, but it seems like the player should need to spend a few in-game hours in a stable area to recover from significant stability loss. It would also lend more weight to the gear method of restoring stability. Honestly don't think this one is needed. Some maps can already have wide swaths of instability, while others can be mostly stable. I think this one is actually more interesting as an option in the settings; turning down the likelihood of finding unstable areas would be great for an easier game, while cranking up the coverage of unstable areas would be a great survival challenge. There could also be the option to make the whole surface neutral, so that the player must either sacrifice gears or kill monsters to keep themselves grounded in reality. I mostly agree with this one, though I would cut the instability spikes and keep the storms as a distinct mechanic. I think this would be great for the special procedural dungeons that have been on the roadmap for a while. The surface ruins are interesting, but not really interesting enough to bother with outside of the early game, in most cases. A tougher ruin/dungeon that has better loot though...that would definitely be a prime goody for an unstable area, and make such areas a point of interest while retaining their dangerous nature. In that case, I would probably make them a rare "new" ruin; that is, rather than ruins of the Old World, it's clearly the ruins of a trader camp or survivor settlement that got overrun years ago. There could probably be a better item or two to find, but the instability would definitely prevent players from just turning such a ruin into a convenient base. Really not a fan of direct changes to the world like this; drastic changes like these are best left to the story locations, where it has a lot more impact. Part of the reason a certain location in chapter 2 is so shocking, is that there's just nothing like it at all prior to the player finding it. If it's just a procedural dungeon that's a mini-version of the Resonance Archive or something milder like that, I think it's fine, but such things really shouldn't be common lest they lose their impact. Not really a fan of this one either. I think the special loot is better suited for procedural dungeons. Not so much stuff that would cause instability, as much as it is just interesting/useful stuff that's difficult to acquire. Interesting idea, but one better reserved for procedural dungeons and specific story locations to ensure it has a significant impact. The ghosts specifically shouldn't be able to be interacted with, outside of special circumstances in a story location. I've not played the Witcher 3, but what comes to mind for me is the Avanchenzel quest from Skyrim--the one where the Argonian lady gives you the cube to return to a Dwemer ruin and you witness echoes of what happened along the way. That is, the entities aren't actually ghosts, as much as they are just echoes in time. Since I'm not a fan of altering the world like this, I would propose just adding invisible rifts to unstable areas instead. The visible rifts still function as normal and are tied to the rift weather. The invisible ones, however, do not drain stability, are constantly present, and will spawn monsters even on the calmest of days. It makes the unstable areas a little more dangerous and a little more obvious as well, since the infestation of monsters would suggest that something about the area allows them to leak through into reality. Pretty much. It can also bite if you're at low stability and a temporal storm hits, however, that's also a rare occurrence. The simplicity is one major reason I like the mechanic as-is though. It's easy to track once the player learns what the gear indicates, and rather forgiving so the world still feels quite approachable. That being said, if the player gets complacent, it's a mechanic that will happily come bite them if given the chance.

I mean, if a weight system is implemented in the name of more realism...realistically the player is only going to be carrying four ashlar stone bricks at a time, if that. Even if the rules are bent somewhat, I would still expect it to be a very tedious reduction in the amount of blocks like dirt, stone, and wood the player can carry in their inventory at a time. Yes, the player could use carts to move around large quantities of those materials, but that doesn't alleviate the issues such a change is going to present for building. The current stack size limits might not be the most realistic, but they make it a lot less of a pain to build stuff. I really don't want to be having to run up and down ladders a million different times just because the game only allows me to carry a few stone blocks at a time. A stack size reduction is fine, since the current stack size is 64, so even if the stack size were drastically cut(like to 16) I can still carry enough stacks of blocks to build with for a while before I need to restock. Right, and I do agree that's an issue. I just don't think weight limits are a good solution here given the problems such a system introduces. I think in this case, something akin to Minecraft's bundle would probably be better. Lump clothing with clothing, jewelry with jewelry, to get a generic "collection" item that fits in one inventory slot and can hold X number of items. The player can activate this collection by holding it and right-clicking to add/retrieve items at will. Items must be removed from the collection before being displayed, used, or otherwise altered. This would also be a prime opportunity to add wardrobes and jewelry boxes specifically for storing these kinds of items. Perhaps they have more storage slots than chests, but can only hold clothing or jewelry, so the furniture is a great way to decorate and store those specific things, but can't be abused for storage in general.

In fairness, the eidolon is a really tough fight, and the occasional goofiness of hitboxs and entity movements doesn't really help things. If you have iron equipment, you should be equipped well enough to handle what comes after the Archive. Chapter Two has had some pretty significant changes since its inception and feels much better to play now than it did at launch. While I would say it's perhaps easier than Chapter One in some ways, there's not really such as thing as too much preparation when it comes to Vintage Story.

I think it's both, really. Vintage Story has realistic mechanics that are also satisfying, in part because they are realistic. Eating a variety of food makes you stronger, wildlife will flee or fight back, monsters will flatten targets that don't take them seriously, etc. Essentially, the player has to earn their spot in the world, rather than the world bending to accommodate the player. I also suspect this may be due, in part, to many players having a background in Minecraft, or otherwise comparing Vintage Story to Minecraft when it comes to realism and overall gameplay. It's understandable why such comparisons happen, but the two really aren't the same kind of game. Overall, I think many players mistakenly equate realism and fun as the same thing. In some cases, that's true, but as you've already noted, there comes a point when the game is no longer worth playing because it's just a copy of reality without the tangible benefits. As for hardcore realism as a challenge, there is a time and place for it, but I think that most players don't really enjoy that level of challenge all the time. For me, the current game balance on Standard feels pretty good. It's fairly challenging and I can easily push my limits if I so choose, or play it safe. I've never really gotten the impression that I've been forced to play very specific ways to avoid punishment.

Not just their behaviors...the models could use a bit of tweaking too, I think. A lot of them seemed to be just tweaks of the salmon model, which is fine for some fish but not for fish like barracuda and triggerfish, which have some more unique silhouettes. Even the poor salmon doesn't really look like a salmon--it doesn't have a pointy snout! Not that the models we have currently are bad...they just aren't very good matches for the fish they're supposed to be in some cases.

I've been thinking about that lately. It seems like flowers could be tweaked so that instead of breaking the plant and getting said plant, perhaps breaking the plant yields seeds/flowers, at most, and the plants themselves actually have to be cultivated by seed. The plants could probably despawn when it's too cold and then respawn in the same general area once the weather warms enough, similar to how mushrooms will respawn after being harvested. The bloom texture itself could probably just be set to invisible whenever the flowers have been harvested or aren't actively blooming. But I'm also not sure how feasible any of that is.

Not so much exclusively oceanfish, but: Mola mola Opah Swordfish/sailfish Humboldt squid Arapaima Tigerfish Giant clams Spider crabs Arowana Koi Sardines/other small fish Basking shark Whale shark Frill shark Cookie-cutter shark Coelacanth Sea snakes

Welcome to the forums! I do like the idea, as it adds some extra flavor to the world, at least for multiplayer. However, I don't think the player actually becomes part of the Rust World when they hit zero stability; they just lose enough grip on reality that they slip between dimensions and get stuck there. I think instead, just let players who are at very low stability become somewhat transparent, but allow them to interact with items, objects, and creatures/NPCs as normal. That way other players have a visual indication for what's going on, but the affected player won't become too confused/frustrated by what's going on or otherwise be able to potentially cheese PvP. Unless I'm mistaken, the monsters that spawn near low stability players can be seen by high stability players, and can hit/be hit by those players as well. So making low stability players completely invisible is probably a bad idea for that reason as well.

The main flaw with the "surface instability isn't fun and should be removed" arguments is that the option to turn it off already exists in the game. "Surface instability isn't fun and should be changed" is a much better argument. In my case though, I often disagree with those arguments simply because I think the current implementation of surface stability is fun, and the proposed changes sound much less fun. An immediately noticeable overlay when I enter an unstable area or noticeably distorted sounds similar to temporal storm effects would certainly make the areas more noticeable, but much less fun to explore since now the warning can't be ignored. Draining stability faster would also be more noticeable, but also make me just avoid those areas entirely(or turn the mechanic off) since the world no longer feels approachable. As it stands currently, the gear gives me enough feedback about what's going on, without being shoved directly in my face. It's entirely possible for me to forget about as well, which can make things rather interesting. The drain rate in unstable surface areas is a minor annoyance, yes, but that's also what keeps the exploration approachable; I can venture into an unstable area and hunt/forage/do whatever for a day or two before actually needing to leave. Granted, that's all just my opinion. I suppose the best summary of my thoughts is "Why does something I like have to change because someone else doesn't like it", if the general argument presented is "I didn't like this, so I think it should change this way"(and the one presenting the argument isn't one of the devs). Honestly, I'm not really sure that there's a good answer here, given the divisive nature of temporal mechanics in general. They strike me as being very difficult to change in a way that won't prompt as many players to just turn them off as players who turn them on. The most I can really say otherwise is that there's been enough complaints about the mechanics and VS is still early enough in development that I wouldn't really be surprised to see some adjustments to them in the future. If/when changes happen, I'll generally try them at least once and then figure out a workaround if it ends up being a change I really don't like.

Valheim has the weight system. Which...kind of works, but is also one reason of many I don't like to play Valheim very much. I'm of a similar mindset as Zane here, in that I don't think mass and weight restrictions really fit well with semi-fantastical block games. The main reason I don't think it's a good idea is that such mechanics can easily bog the player down in busywork and stop them from enjoying other gameplay loops, since inventory is involved with practically everything. The games I've seen where mass/weight mechanics work well as a challenge without dragging down the overall gameplay, are games that utilize weight/mass as one of the few primary challenges the player has to contend with regularly. While Vintage Story is a survival game, it's also got a significant focus on building, as evidenced by the chiseling system and wide variety of aesthetic blocks that have been added. One quick way to kill enthusiasm for building is requiring the player to make many, many trips just to restock their supplies while building, let alone how many trips it's going to take to collect the raw materials for those supplies. Stack limits are a much better way to handle things here, especially since there are already other survival challenges the player needs to deal with on top of already limited inventory space.

Pretty much my initial thoughts on it after watching some gameplay footage, though it seems more of a hybrid of Valheim and Minecraft to me. The focus seems to be heavy on combat and exploration, and not so much building. Survival elements seem to be nonexistent and more akin to old Minecraft mixed with Valheim, where food only buffs you or heals you and isn't something actually required under most circumstances. The artstyle is very nice and the models are more detailed than Minecraft, but I suspect the building options may actually end up more limited than Minecraft due to those detailed models. To my knowledge, Hytale doesn't have a chiseling system like Vintage Story, though I could be wrong. Also agree here. Younger target audience, though I'm sure the overall age range will be pretty broad. A great game for whimsical adventures and lots of action, as well as minigames, but likely lacking in the realism or story grit. That's not a bad thing, just quite different. I'm guessing that may be the reason why Tyron left the Hytale team to create Vintage Story.

It is a niche game, but I'm not sure it's that niche. I'm thinking it may be more a factor of artists not wanting to risk copyright issues regarding merchandise, despite the fact that Anego is pretty clear about what they do and don't allow. Unofficial merchandise also isn't quite the same as the official thing either. Dave would probably be easier to get since the design is more open to interpretation. The tree logo though probably isn't going to happen unless there's official merchandise released, as it's the trademark logo of Vintage Story. From the homepage: For the tree logo, I'm guessing someone could probably draw it in their own style and it would be okay as long as it was marked unofficial, but it definitely wouldn't be the same as having the actual logo as a sticker.

One potential flaw I see here is placing a marker like this, forgetting how I marked it, and then wondering where the marker went some time later after I've left the location.

I think when the world is first generated, or otherwise first loaded in a new game version, the loading will be a bit longer than average since the world is actively being generated and whatnot. Otherwise, the average load time for a vanilla game shouldn't take all that long. Mods will definitely affect load times, especially mods that add lots of items or alter world generation. Large modlists will slow things down as well. I think the average vanilla load time for me is around 10 seconds, but the modded load times can easily be a minute or two, depending on what mods I picked. Low RAM will definitely affect things, and I'm inclined to think it may be the culprit here. You might try restarting your pc and see if that improves performance a bit.

They serve as some pretty good immersive worldbuilding, in my opinion, as well as a more unique survival challenge. It doesn't really feel like there were catastrophic world-altering events in the past if there's nothing wrong in the present aside from a few monsters. Of course, it's not everyone's cup of tea, hence where there are options to turn off mechanics like temporal instability and temporal storms. /worldconfig temporalStability false /worldconfig temporalStorms off You should be able to run these commands at any time after world generation; just reload the world for them to take effect. For the Standard game mode, temporal stability is enabled by default, and temporal storms are set to occur "sometimes"(with the full list of options being off | veryrare | rare | sometimes | often | veryoften).

Hence why I said it'd be a good mod. That way the extra challenge is there, but it's optional since it's not baked into the base game itself. I could be wrong, but I don't think inventory changes are something that could just have a toggle in the settings. I think this is a better solution. I don't think that world storage options would even need buffs; a special stockpile that can only store large things like logs or stones would be more attractive to a player by default, since it could hold a lot of raw material in an aesthetically pleasing fashion rather than just shoving it all into yet another crate. With the new shelf storage that's been teased, I'm thinking there's also going to be a lot more storage space becoming available in players' chests.