LadyWYT

I know it's a real thing. I meant that I think it would be easier to handle via net when it comes to game mechanics, than it would be to try to account for the player handling a fishing rod and somehow still steering the sailboat or paddling the raft at the same time. It's a bit difficult to handle a paddle if your hands are occupied with a fishing pole, and the sailboats currently don't count as solid entities and only move if someone is sitting in the captain's seat. Hence also why I made the suggestions about the reel and lures. It gives the player more to do with the fishing pole, without getting too complicated.

As far as I'm aware, it's true. It certainly tracks with my experience. I think you said it best here: For the most part, I don't think combat or temporal storms need the drastic overhaul that some players claim they do. And for your post specifically, I don't agree with much of any of it since the kind of design you seem to favor is not the kind of design that Vintage Story seems to be aiming for. This is a good example of what I'm talking about. Tyron himself is on record, I do believe, about the ability to set respawn points to be a very powerful one, and the reason he designed VS's system like he did(interview with Oscillascape, I think it was). Some players hate it--generally the more casual players--and that much is fair, but I don't think that's a reason to change the entire system to one that's super lenient. The game itself already provides the player options to deal with it, since the gear respawns can be set to infinite times and "keep inventory" can be toggled on if the player is worried about losing items. It's also worth noting that temporal gears can be used to set spawns inside of story locations, where a placeable item like a bed just will not do. That doesn't mean there can't be a solution for the more casual players though. The best solution, in my opinion, is simply to let the player have the option to spawn with a temporal gear in their inventory. That way they get one free spawn reset so they can set their spawn wherever they wish to build their base, as soon as they find a good location. Agreed, though I think the popularity of such a system will depend heavily on how easy it is to get injured versus how easy it is to deal with the injuries received. I've had pretty good luck with the concept in Skyrim, but it can be pretty brutal if you get careless or really unlucky.

This seems like something better suited for a net rather than the fishing rod, at least for use with watercraft. Especially since watercraft don't exactly count as solid objects, so it's impossible to both sail and fish unless you have someone sitting in the captain's seat. The better option for fishing rods, I think, would be to add a reel. That way, the player can upgrade their rod later and have the option to cast their line and then reel it in slowly, making fishing a bit more dynamic. Additionally, crafting the line from linen thread rather than rope could make fish more likely to bite, since the "trap" wouldn't be nearly as obvious. The player could also have the option of using feathers or bits of metal to fashion lures, which could also increase the chances of a bite.

I know that I had an issue with a planter causing the beehive kiln to fail to fire. But in that cause, looking at the kiln door alerted me to the issue, and I was playing with mods so it could have easily been a mod issue. It shouldn't need to be. And 60+ hours should be more than enough time for the bricks to fire. Unfortunately I'm not really sure what to do here, aside from check any mods that are in use and report the issue on Github.

Welcome to the forums! This isn't quite true. While you can't place torches down in the Archive in order to light them or place lit torches just anywhere, you can place lit torches in the empty torch holders in the Archive, and the library has chandeliers and candles you can place in them. Likewise, it's also not necessary to have a light equipped in your off-hand at all times. Once you fire up the main machinery, most of the Archive will be lit up enough to see fairly well, with only a couple of exceptions. And of course, if the player is sufficiently advanced, the night vision mask is an option, though it is a risk since it currently provides no armor. This really depends on who you ask. I find it enjoyable. This depends on the enemy and enemy tier, as well as what killed said enemy. If an enemy dies to something that isn't a player, the drops are reduced. If the enemy is a low tier, they don't have much of value since they are an easier enemy to fight. Tough enemies like corrupt and nightmare level monsters almost always drop something, with the special "miniboss" enemies like bells, sawblade locusts, deepsplit/bellhead/stilt shivers, and double-headed drifters all are guaranteed to drop a handful of flax fibers, rusty gears, and at least one temporal gear, with the potential for an additional gear or a Jonas part. In the earlier game, hunting the special monsters in temporal storms can be quite lucrative, since the storms aren't as strong and a handful of rusty gears can let you purchase several resources from traders, that can in turn hasten progression since you won't need to find those resources yourself. The ability to set one's spawn point is a powerful ability, which is why Vintage Story treats it much differently than Minecraft. Setting a spawn point requires a temporal gear, and by default the player is limited to 20 respawns(this can be adjusted in world settings) at that spot before they'll need to use another gear or be sent back to world spawn. This pushes the player to be more careful with their actions and think more carefully about how they use this power, rather than encouraging them to play recklessly since a bed will just fix everything. The late game opens up more convenience regarding "death runs" though--building the terminus teleporter allows the player to teleport to their last point of death, for the cost of one temporal gear. Also worth noting that "returns to world spawn" is highly subjective, since the spawn radius from the world spawn can be increased or decreased. On harder difficulties like Wilderness Survival, the radius is increased to 5000 blocks instead of the standard 50 blocks. This is no longer true. Wolves and bears both have footsteps now. They are, however, quite subtle, so if you aren't paying attention they're quite easy to miss. Again, it depends on who you ask. I enjoy the mechanics, and have found that while they're generally easy to handle, they can also very much sneak up on you if you aren't paying attention. It's all fun and games until the happy hunting grounds are in an unstable area, and you're intending to camp overnight... Additionally, chunk stability and rift weather affects monster and rift spawns. Unstable surface areas are more likely to spawn rifts, and unstable areas underground are more likely to have monsters. Likewise, lower rift activity means fewer monsters underground, while higher rift activity means more. It's a good idea to plan underground activities for days of low rift activity, as well as a good idea to keep an eye on the activity while you're underground. This can be changed in the world settings. 1.23 is supposed to contain some sort of armor rework. A status effect system is also planned, and will almost certainly change combat(and many other things) quite drastically, but it's unknown when such a system will be implemented. Most everything else is speculation, to my knowledge.

I doubt I would. I'm not that social to start with, and in my general experience clubs are very hit-or-miss. They can easily be a place to find people with the same interests and make new friends, but they can also just as easily be places that are rife with bullying, toxic positivity, and other bad behavior. Keeping in mind that politics are a touchy subject, and a subject that easily gets incredibly heated in the present day. I honestly don't see this kind of thing working out very well. Right, you can tell all that to the people in charge of the funding. However, if that's just the excuse to get funding and not the actual reason the club exists...I'm not sure that would go over too well with the ones providing funding or other clubs who are genuinely trying to provide academic opportunities. At the very least, if I were contributing money to a club under the pretext that it's for academics, I wouldn't be very happy to find out the club is actually just students hanging out and playing videogames. Same goes for being part of an academic club competing for the same funding--I wouldn't be very happy if my club didn't get the funding it needed while a club that's just about playing videogames got all the funding it asked for. Edit: It's probably the kind of thing that, if it's going to be a thing, would work better as a computer science club, where members can hone their coding skills by creating mods for various games/attempt to make their own games, rather than a club for a specific game.

This is why I hate Valheim's building system. It works perfectly fine until you want to use that material for some texturing where the game won't let you place it. For what it's worth though, heavy materials aren't limited strictly to the lower floors of buildings. Notre Dame is one famous example of such. Additionally, a lot of stonework was often covered with plaster and then painted, I believe, so just because the structure itself is stone doesn't mean that the stones themselves are going to be visible.

Echoing what @Rainbow Fresh already said, I wouldn't worry about the instability problem. If it was your whole house, then it would be a bigger concern, but if it's just two rooms then it's very easy for you to ignore, for the most part, or switch rooms if you really need to recover. Surface instability tends to be rather mild, so it usually takes several minutes for it to drain to critical levels(monsters start appearing at 25% remaining).

Ah. That's a bit different. I'm still skeptical of it, but if it had to be a thing, I would vote for both nutrition and satiety being lost. Because I mean, something old enough to lose its nutritional value probably isn't going to be very satisfying to eat either. Probably because to me, if it's old enough to start losing nutritional value, then it's a dodgey food item that you probably shouldn't eat, because it can possibly make you sick. That doesn't mean that will, but that doesn't guarantee you'll be fine after eating it either. I don't think the nutritional/satiety decay would be enough to discourage players from simply ignoring their food stores and exploiting the food that don't ever spoil, hence the other reason that I think it should potentially cause the player to get ill if they eat it. The risk doesn't need to be exceptionally high, and it doesn't need to be a serious illness or anything. But it should be just enough to take the edge off the player if they do get sick, and otherwise get them to think twice before happily ignoring the freshness timers. That was my general rationale for simplifying the process. Air drying is a little difficult to simulate in the game, and to my knowledge it usually requires a little bit of smoke to help keep insects away from it while it dries. I also didn't want to just rely on a block item or structure, like Primitive Survival does. Hence the campfire cooking--it gets the idea across fairly well, and can be easily done almost anywhere. That's fair. It's just the name I'm most familiar with for that kind of item. I don't really care what the item gets called, but it would be nice to have an option like it, although it's not the end of the world if that option is never added either. I mostly agree, but I split hairs earlier when writing the concept because while dried meat makes sense to add to soups and stews(where it can be rehydrated), it doesn't make as much sense to add to something like a pie. Now in fairness, the game does allow the player to cook some pretty goofy recipes, but still...I wanted at least a little logic. I thought about suggesting some sort of requirement for soaking cured meat in water for a couple of hours to remove the brine, allowing it to be used in meals and pies, but that seemed a bit much(even if that is what you need to do to prepare salted meat for cooking). I did suggest this earlier, along with disabling the spoilage in player inventory while they're offline as well.

Revisiting this since yesterday's brain fog is starting to lift a bit--here's how I could see things working in the early game. For meat, I think the shelf life of raw fat and cooked meat could be shortened to put raw fat on par with raw meat, and cooked meat only having an extra day compared to its raw counterpart. Same goes for certain fruits and vegetables, though perhaps not to the same extent(that is, they'll last for a handful of months in storage before going bad, rather than a whole year). That puts a little more survival pressure on the player and gives a bit more value to preservation methods, without outright forcing the player to spend a lot of time grinding for food just to survive when they'd rather just be pushing through the earlier stages of the game. That being said, we're also going to give the player some additional options for how they cook food, in order to give them more ways to play the game. Drying/Smoking: Cooked meat could be cooked again, at a slower rate, in order to dry it out. It's going to lose some of the satiety in the process, but it's a food that can last for a week in the player inventory, and can be eaten as-is or used to make other sorts of food(like soups and stews). The cooking time is a little slower than for raw meat, but it's not something the player will need to spend all day doing just to preserve a bit of food. Players who'd prefer a faster game pace can safely ignore this if they wish, but players who prefer a slower game pace can have a lot of fun with it. It also makes a nomadic playstyle much more feasible, and is very useful for situational circumstances like harsher climates. Additionally, drying can be used on certain other foodstuffs, like berries, vegetables, and mushrooms, to make them last longer as well(while reducing satiety and limiting what foodstuffs these can be added to). It also lets the later game options like cured meat and pickled vegetables retain their value, since those things are a little tougher to acquire but last for a much longer time. Pemmican: Rendered fat, dried fruit/vegetables, and dried/cured meat can be processed into cakes of this stuff. It can't be used in meals, but it can last quite a while before it spoils--maybe a year? Better than the basic stuff, but not as good as more "advanced" options like salted meat and vegetables. A good option for nomads or travel rations. Anyway, you get the idea. Is it incredibly realistic? No, but there's enough realism there to feel plausible, while leaving the player enough freedom to decide how they'd like to play.

That's my point though? What's the use of eating it if it provides no satiety? Rot doesn't provide satiety either, but it can at least be turned into compost. A food that offers no calories but doesn't rot is useless, outside of being decoration. Which in fairness, many players would like, but probably won't enjoy needing to a wait a long time to let the food in question decay into a decoration when there could easily be an alternative offered with some sort of wax/borax processing. I could see this working, but only with a status effect system so the player risks getting sick if they eat the spoiled preserves. But even so, that still leaves the player with the problem of a food they don't really want to eat, and no way to actually make use of it otherwise. You probably shouldn't feed food that spoiled to animals, and if it never actually rots fully then it can't be composted. Probably because I'm trying to think of all the various things the player needs to do in order to stay alive and progress throughout the game. Realistically, raw meat and fat should spoil faster than it does in the game, and yes, you could give the player a way to dry it so that it can last for a few days instead of spoiling within a few hours. However, that also means that the player is going to need more time hunting/fishing and/or preserving whatever they caught, which is less time to do things like...build a shelter, or look for ore, or work on claystuffs, etc. Realistic? Sure. It would probably even be fun, in some respects. But for me personally, at least, I'm not sure that I'd want the early game to become that much of a slog. One of the strengths of the current design is that the player can choose to take their time if they wish, but if they want to just get on with things then they can rush some of the progression or do things like hunt several many creatures in one day and not need to worry about the meat spoiling before they can get it home or if they store it raw in a cellar. Sure. I just think it's the kind of thing that needs to be done carefully, is all. A lot of suggestions I've seen about foodstuffs and the early game is that they tend to be weighted too far one way or the other(too much grindy hardcore or too easy like Minecraft), or place far too much emphasis on a very niche kind of player(like a very casual player on a large, busy server). I like making jam in the game. I typically don't make it from apples and pears and such, since those have long shelf lives and aren't really what I would consider a good preserves item IRL. It's not that you can't make preserves from them, or that such preserves aren't tasty. It's just not that much of a thing in my region, that I'm aware of. The main gripe I have about jam in the game is that it can't be used as pie filling or in stews or whatever. A lot of canned pie fillings are basically jam, so...I mean it makes sense to me? Same as using jam in stews--it's not the typical stew ingredient, but it's not unusual either to cook meat alongside fruit or fruit preserves. Since we don't have a roast option or anything, the meat stew is as close as it gets. Same for porridge--a dollop of fruit preserves makes oatmeal a lot tastier. What doesn't make very logical sense to me is just eating jam by itself; sure, you can do that, but I don't know anyone who actually does that IRL unless they're licking the spoon after scooping jam for a recipe.

Pretty much. Which I do agree, it's probably a concession made so that the player can have more precise control over navigating the world, at least when it comes to land-based navigation. I'm not really sure that that should change either. Yes, adding some weight to the player's movements would make it more immersive, and mean that the player needs to think more carefully about what they're doing when it comes to combat and hanging around ledges and things. But I could also easily see a lot of players getting frustrated because they fell down a hole/fell off a ledge, or otherwise did something detrimental because they miscalculated an action. The key probably comes down to the timing--the weight behind the actions doesn't need to be absolutely realistic, but rather just enough to make the action feel like a movement. In addition to what MKMoose said, be aware that water currents in Vintage Story are harder to swim against as well. It's pretty easy to get swept into a hole you can't escape from and drown as a result.

If only Jonas had realized this sooner. Of course, then there wouldn't exactly be a story to play.

Kind of. There's a little bit of weight there, it's just a bit subtle. It's a lot more noticeable if you run around in third-person, since the character will actually lean slightly when switching directions while running.

Welcome to the forums! It's probably due to the fact that the momentum actually matches the swim animation. The character does a kind of "frog paddle", which will thrust the character forward in short bursts rather than one continuous smooth movement(which is the style many games use regardless of animation). Personally, I've never really found it to be particular janky. At least, no more than any other movement/animation in the game. Some animations are rougher than others since they're simpler placeholders, and cleaning up art and animations is usually work reserved for the final stages of polish, where the underlying codework isn't likely to change very much. The only thing I really have to nitpick here is that the froggy paddle works fine for swimming underwater, but it's a strange choice for the surface since that's not how most people swim on the surface.

In my opinion a calculator works best as a mod. Yes, there is a "min/max" ratio for every alloy, but it saves you like...maybe a nugget or two per casting. It's better not to stress over it and just make whatever you have on hand work for whatever you need. If you're casting tin bronze and don't have a lot of tin, cool, you might want to be a little heavier on the copper. Have plenty of both and have other stuff you need copper for? Use a bit more tin. And so on and so forth.

The main problem this entire thread is about is the players who only play maybe two hours a week, and choose to spend their playtime on a large, active server. Simply making the early game more of a grind doesn't really do anything to help this player. Regarding players in general? You need to be careful when it comes to increasing the amount of grind in the game. Some players enjoy grinding for grinding's sake, while others distinctly do not. If you just make them run longer to get to the same goal, without a very good reason for doing so, they tend to get rather frustrated. No, food spoilage and supply absolutely still matters in the late game. Sure, it's all easier to manage, but if the player gets lazy and ignores that management guess what...they run out of food, and need to drop what they're doing to go get more. So no, they shouldn't need to worry about starving in the late game, but it's something that absolutely can happen if they fail to plan properly. That's part of the appeal of Vintage Story--you have to respect the game world and the natural cycles that go with it. You can't spend an hour collecting a mountain of steaks, shove them all in a box, and expect to be fine on food for the next several many play sessions. If you don't store your food properly, it goes bad rather quickly. If you preserve food, that does extend the shelf life, but if you never bother to actually manage your food stores and make sure you're using the old stuff and replacing it with new...then it rots and you get left with nothing to eat. In contrast, Minecraft doesn't have that kind of gameplay. Food never goes bad, and you can just automate everything so you don't even have to bother doing the farming yourself. The player also cannot die of hunger, except maybe if they play on Hard difficulty. So there's nothing here for the player to actually manage. Which is great if you just want a sandbox with no consequences, but it's not very satisfying if you were hoping for a realistic survival experience in a world that actually provides consequences for actions. Which doesn't mean it's a non-existent factor that the player can ignore. As I said above, if the player fails the simple task of basic food supply management, they suffer the consequences of needing to immediately turn their attention toward not starving. Again, it boils down to the kind of player you want to cater to. And simply extending the early game grind doesn't fix the issue that very casual players have when it comes to large, active servers. The best solution here is still to just tweak how spoilage works for the player inventory and claims while offline. It fixes the multiplayer problems without affecting singleplayer, and without altering how the general game plays.

Okay, sure, but it's worth noting that the wiki can contain incorrect or out-of-date information. It is useful sometimes, but what the wiki says here doesn't track with my in-game experience. I'd prefer to see some code covering how this works and what the weight brackets are before I go saying that "yes, this is definitely a thing that happens". Sure, but again...if the server is that inactive, you don't need to worry about food spoilage, unless you're only playing for a couple of hours maybe once in a blue moon. Hold up, no, no you do not get to demand that we ignore fishing as a solution, and then present it as a viable solution to the problem later. Either it is a solution, or it isn't. You can't in good faith say that it's both at the same time, that's contradictory. That contention aside, here's the problem with an easy-to-collect resource in the early game: it's also going to be easy to collect in the late game. If you give this "forever food" 200 satiety points, then you're putting it on the same level as cured redmeat, which is a late game food item that spoils. So why would players bother using later-game preservation methods when they have access to something that's much easier to acquire that offers the same benefits but doesn't spoil? I know I wouldn't be crafting the stuff that spoils--I'd be using the "forever food". Okay, so let's solve the above problem by letting this "forever food" be easy to obtain so it can still be used in the early game, but make it have 50-100 satiety instead so it's worth less than the later-game preserved foods. It's more inefficient, so the new player now needs to spend more time collecting it, when means they can easily spend their whole session scraping together enough food to get them through the couple hours they have for next session without starving...and then what? If they don't focus on food at all next session, that means they'll have nothing for the session after that, and need to drop what they're doing to focus on not starving. Or they could just spend their session grinding for another two hours' worth of food, in which case, they're just trapped in a loop of scratching out a barebones existence every single session and not actually getting to play the game. And of course, while this "forever food" might be more inefficient, it still doesn't spoil and is easily acquired, so established players are still encouraged to favor it over options that require more effort and will spoil. Trying to solve the above problem by lowering the stack size of the "forever food" doesn't work either, as that just makes life harder for the new player. When you're first starting out, inventory space is at a premium, and most players aren't going to be thrilled about needing to burn a lot of inventory slots to carry this stuff around, or grind out a ton of baskets or storage vessels just to store it all. Maybe they get lucky and find an aged crate, but crafting a crate itself is going to require a saw, which requires metalworking, and there's only so much one can grind out in a couple hours. Especially if they're having to deal with a grindy food on top of that just to avoid starvation. And not every player wants to rush everything either, so those that want to take their time aren't going to be happy about getting pushed to rush certain things. The problem with trying to turn bushmeat into the exclusive early-game survival option is that there are other, better meat options available. If the player can't use any of the other, better options to craft the survival food option, they're going to be frustrated about the lack of consistency. I think it's also worth noting that while players might not be competing heavily for bushmeat now, they certainly will if bushmeat can be turned into a high-value survival item. And of course, if the goal is to give new players an easy-to-obtain survival food option for the early game, you don't want it to come from a non-abundant resource, as those don't make for easy-to-obtain supplies. The point of progression is to achieve an easier, more abundant life, and take some of the pressures off the player so they can more easily do other stuff, like go on long trips or spend less time hunting/foraging and more time working the forge or building or whatever else they want to do. That doesn't mean the player gets to completely ignore the natural cycles of the game world though. I'd like to see this too, and Primitive Survival had a good way of handling such a concept...albeit with smoking and not drying. Basically, smoking would extend the shelf life of fresh meat significantly at the cost of some satiety and taking the time to preserve it, of course. It wouldn't last as long as cured meat, so that preservation option still remained quite viable. This wouldn't be the worst thing, but it is just the same thing as spoilage, without the gross visuals and pile of rot at the end of the timer. I think it's better to stick to the spoilage system, really, since the visuals help the player notice that the food is becoming less valuable. This would be a nice feature though. Expanded Foods has it for alcohol. It would still be the kind of thing that spoils, so not something the player can just keep around forever, but having some "fancy food" options would be a great way to make the late-game homesteading more interesting. Oh it definitely is, but it's a small concession made for the sake of gameplay. There is at least a setting to increase it, but the default provides just enough pressure to get the player to manage their time and resources carefully, without completely removing their option of focusing on other aspects of the game instead of just food. IE, the player can spend half an hour hunting and have enough food to spend their next hour or so of playtime doing things like building a house or mining ore, etc. There's kind of a concept there, but it doesn't really apply until the second year of gameplay(which is technically counted as Year 1). I'd like to see berry bushes become more like fruit trees, in that they have a specific time of year(maybe two, depends on the berry variety) in which they yield their crop before becoming just part of the background. Would also depend on the local weather as well. Maybe it would be as simple as providing some sort of check to stop the bush from flowering again that year if it's already produced a crop? Not sure. Same with animals--some should breed all year round, but others should have breeding seasons, so that the player needs to plan around that factor if they want fresh dairy products or want to keep wild herds populated or something. In short, it would be tough to pull off properly, and is the kind of thing that probably needs to be several smaller changes over time rather than one big patch. At least, I think.

Again, it depends on the animal. Goats and sheep can eat grass, which never spoils and is easy to harvest en masse. It can be compacted into haybales for better storage. Have you got a code source for this? I've played for a long time, only feeding my animals when I want them to breed or produce eggs, and have never seen them lose weight. So to my knowledge, this just isn't true, outside of some mod shenanigans. No, it's the other way around. Male animals have slightly higher yields than female animals. Okay so here's the thing--any server worth its salt is going to be trying to ensure a fun experience for both regular players and newcomers. Yes, as a general rule, the regulars might not be actively offering help to the newcomers, since it can be rude to offer to just do everything for someone in a game. However, if there are known difficulties for newcomers, or the newcomers otherwise ask for help getting set up...it's probably a good idea to help them if you want the server to be friendly to newcomers. And food spoilage is also a problem on the large servers that are busy; if no one is online, then time isn't passing and food is therefore not spoiling. So if a new player joins a large server, but no one is ever around...then they don't really need to worry about food spoilage as much now, do they? Given that the general purpose of joining a large server is for the higher social activity, the bigger question here is why are they joining a "dead" server, or why are they joining a server where clearly they do not play at the same time as anyone else? Okay, hold up. Here's the thing--one of the core aspects of Vintage Story is that it takes time to do things, and the game world has natural cycles that the player will need to respect and engage with in order to succeed. Food spoilage and preservation is one of those things, and a quality that sets VS apart from other titles(like Minecraft and Valheim), where food often never spoils. So shouldn't the goal be to find some way to make the system work on large, active servers so that all players can have fun with it, rather than just tell the more casual players "just grind out Minecraft food"? The main argument with the "forever food" solution is that it's supposed to be a solution that players can use at the very start of the game, so they don't have to concern themselves with food at all when they next log in, right? Which means that such a food needs to easy to acquire in a couple hours of gameplay, and provide good satiety, since making it difficult to acquire or giving it poor satiety will be forcing new players to spend all their time grinding out this food to make sure they don't starve, rather than enjoying playing the game and making progress. However, by making such a food easy to get and putting it on par with the satiety values of the existing preserved foodstuffs, the entire preservation loop is rendered useless, because players are not going to invest their resources in food that spoils when they can have food that doesn't for just as much work, if not less. That affects both the multiplayer and singleplayer experience. Since we don't want to unbalance the game like that, what we do is simply tweak the spoilage rates for player inventories and claims. That solves the food spoilage problem easily without changing the core gameplay itself.

Wildcraft would still be my prime suspect based on the screenshot, since that mod does mess with berry bushes and you're trying to turn berries into jam. The best advice I have otherwise is to disable your mods, ensure that the vanilla game works properly, and then re-enable each mod one by one, testing as you do so. When the issue reappears, you'll have found the problem mod.

This strategy relies on several factors in order to work. Chief among them being that the other player won't take your stuff, will be online when you need your stuff, and will be willing to just not play at all so that your stuff stays safe. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to be logging in all the time to be a friend's packmule just because they couldn't be bothered to keep their stuff in their own inventory and claim. I certainly wouldn't do it on a game or server that I don't want to play on myself. The only way I see this being very feasible is via multi-boxing, but that relies on the player being willing to buy two different game accounts, and the server not having rules against multi-boxing. And in my experience, multi-boxing is something that generally isn't looked on kindly by other players, since it gives an unfair advantage, and thus probably isn't going to be looked on favorably when it comes to server rules. Depends. To my knowledge, livestock don't lose weight over time, and it's quite easy to feed them up to Good weight. Depends heavily on the animal gender and species, not just the weight. A well-fed hog can easily provide enough meat for a crock of stew(or most of a crock, two slots of meat), while a well-fed sheep can easily provide an entire cookpot full of stew(six servings, two slots of meat). This is going to depend heavily on the game settings and other factors like player activity level, class choice, time of year, and whether or not the player is currently injured. I think this rundown also fails to account for the fact that certain foods like cookpot meals will pause hunger. The block breaking cost I'm also rather skeptical of, since if each block costs 25 points, then every 4 blocks is costing 100 points, which means that the player is going to empty their hunger every 60 blocks. And it's not very hard to break 60 blocks in a very short time. Something is off here. In my experience on standard settings, a crock of meat stew should be enough to get the player through one, maybe two, in-game days, which equates to about an hour and a half of real time. Certainly enough time to go hunt, forage, or fish up more food, with some time left over to do other things. So all the player really needs is one, maybe two, spare animals that they can slaughter and turn into a stew or soup--enough to allow them to go hunt, forage, fish, or buy food from the auction house. Alcohol and honey can fill a similar role if needed, but neither will pause hunger as a proper meal will, so the grace period is going to be a little shorter. Same goes for walnuts, fat, and bamboo shoots. But they're still viable options. And no, we aren't going to ignore fishing. That's also a readily available, perfectly viable option for the player to use to quickly replenish their food stock without too much effort. Plus if we want to insist that it isn't viable because it "forces the player to drop whatever they were doing at the time to focus on food", then it's not very logical at all to turn around and say that forcing the player to spend all their time on an incredibly tedious early-game "forever food" just to avoid starvation the next time they log in is a satisfactory solution. Now if the player doesn't want to focus on food at all for that player session, then that means they'll need to put more effort into things like acquiring herds of livestock, hoarding heaps of honeycomb or fat, brewing and distilling lots of liquor, or stockpiling gears to buy supplies if they don't intend to play on that server regularly. In any case though, none of this is a concern if the spoilage rates for the player inventory and player claims are tweaked. As I said in previous posts, tweaking those rates allows players to play multiplayer the same way they would in singleplayer, but without worrying about starving to death because all their food rotted, rushing certain parts of the game because of supply limitations, or otherwise spending a lot of time grinding out very specific foodstuffs just so they can have one session where they can maybe focus on something else. Keeping in mind that while Chapter Two introduced the concept of traveling very long distances for certain story events, it also introduced the concept of unlocking "fast travel" systems. That is, when it comes to major travels and story content, at least, the plan seems to be for the player to unlock some sort of fast travel to the main location, so they can make a return trip later with much greater ease. Like @SnapJelly already said, there's really nothing to do at the poles currently. And yes, resources are scarce there, partly because it's the arctic and the arctic isn't known to be very easy to live in, and also because the arctic is one area of the game that's not very fleshed out. The better argument here is that we need more resources native to the arctic that the player can use to survive. If it's multiplayer, you don't even have to find your own bees. You can just buy them from another player, assuming they don't just give you a skep for free. Pretty much anything can be stored in a crate, including other crates, I'm pretty sure. How much can fit in the crate depends on what the crate is made from. Aged crates can only hold 16 stacks. Most other wood crates can hold 20 stacks of items, with the exception of ebony and purpleheart crates, which can both hold up to 25 stacks of items.

You're not. I've tried the alt-click method and hate it. The standard method feels much more natural to me.

Maybe, but I haven't managed to think of a good way to cheese it. If your name isn't on the claim, then you're not allowed to interact with the stuff in that claim, so you're losing access to some of your stuff. If your name is on the claim though, then the spoil time is ticking whenever you're online. And storing stuff in another player's claim means that you're trusting them to be online when you want it back, and that they'll give it back, and that they'll be willing to let you use their space instead of storing their own stuff there. Admins could probably cheese it by shuttling stuff around for players, but I don't think many admins are going to want to do that when players are perfectly capable of storing their own stuff. In my experience, on default settings you can travel around 7-10k blocks a day over land, depending on the terrain. Translocators can extend the range even further. I think the furthest the player actually has to travel is around 20k blocks from spawn, and that's only if they want to complete the story. If they really want to visit the arctic or the tropics, then it's more like 70k blocks, I think. But story and polar-equator distances are both settings that can be changed at world creation, and chapter two(which involves the heavy traveling) can be completed in about an in-game week, so the preserved foodstuffs mentioned below should be more than enough to keep the player adequately supplied for such a trip. It's also worth noting that using an item like the base return teleporter allows the player to skip the walk home, teleporting them there instantly instead. The way I look at food for travel though is...managing your supplies and acquiring fresh ones as needed should be part of the process. It's why you bring along a cookpot, or pack foods like flour, grain, pickles, cheese, and salted meat. Those items stay fresh for a long time and stack rather high, so they make very good road rations. The cookpot is useful for turning freshly hunted/foraged food into a nice meal, when you can get fresh supplies anyway, meaning your preserved foodstuffs will last even longer. In regards to outposts...the point of building one is that it's a spot you intend to visit somewhat regularly. The preserved foodstuffs currently in the game last for years when stored properly in a cellar, and it's also possible to set up a small farm with livestock nearby to help with the supplies as well, or rely on hunting, fishing, and foraging to supplement the staples stored in the outpost. Of course, if the outpost is purely decorative, that's also fine, but in that case it doesn't need supplies since it's not actually going to be used.

Primitive Survival and Wildcraft don't have issues when used together, at least to my knowledge. Expanded Foods and Wildcraft are the ones that aren't compatible, as far as I'm aware. So if you're using both of those together, that could be what's causing the issue. However, you've also not provided a modlist, but are clearly playing a modded client, so the issue could easily lie with a different mod as well. Outside of Wildcraft, my suspects would be any other mod that affects cooking or berry bushes.

If the point is to store food long term, you don't need to cull them. The meat doesn't spoil if the animal is alive. All you have to do is trap the animals in a pen and then feed them enough to breed. This is easy to do in the first in-game year. And if you're playing multiplayer, you can always ask someone who already has bees if you can buy/have a full skep. Or, y'know, spend the time to get a skep full from a wild hive. You can have significant stockpiles in the first year by putting effort into farming and keeping track of where the wild bushes are. If you're playing on an established multiplayer server, wild fruit trees are also on the table, since the server will have been running long enough for them to produce. Using bait makes the fish easier to catch. And bait is as simple as just grunting around a few minutes for some worms. Fishing can be done on the very first day of playing, and it doesn't take much fishing to get enough meat for a meaty stew. Nope. When a player is offline, you can't access their claim without permission unless you're an admin(which aren't counted for the spoil timer since that role has special powers for maintaining order on the server). If you have permission to access the claim, then that means your name is tied to the claim...which means that the spoil timer is going to keep ticking because the claim still has a responsible party online. If your name isn't tied to the claim, then sure, you could put everything there(or at least, have the claim owner do it) before that player logs out...but that also means that whatever you store there is no longer under your control, and there's no guarantee the claim owner will come back online at the same time as you. And of course, you'd also be assuming that the claim owner wouldn't keep it for themselves, or would be open to letting someone else use their storage space(when they could be using it for their own stuff), or would be willing to stay offline(and thus not play) just so that your stuff stays fresh. Someone could do it through an alt account, I suppose, but that's expensive and clunky to manage, and something that could potentially warrant a ban from the server depending on the server rules. There's also no reason to store things in someone else's claim when you can just...store it in your claim. It'll keep fresh while you're offline, and there's plenty of stuff that can be stuffed into even a small cellar. The player inventory option could technically be abused a little, but here's how I look at it: if the player is storing things in their inventory like that, that means they're going to have to go to the effort of loading their inventory full of stuff before they log off, and then unload their inventory when they log back on. That's why the claim option is important--the claim gives them a place to store a lot of stuff, without worrying about someone messing with it or the stuff spoiling while they're offline. Basically, the two options are meant to go hand-in-hand. To break it down into gameplay terms, let's look at it from the perspective of a casual lone-wolf who only has a couple hours at night to play, a couple of days a week at best. This player chooses to play on a large, active multiplayer server, because they like the more social atmosphere, and maybe they have a friend or two that also plays. Option #1 is going to be immensely valuable to this player at the start, because it allows the player to play the game normally without feeling like they have to rush certain mechanics to avoid starving to death. They can hunt and forage some food, acquire their first claywares, and focus on finding the perfect little spot to settle down and build a base. If they can't find a spot the first session, that's okay--all they really need to do is make sure they have some food in their inventory for next time and they should be able to pick up right where they left off and continue their adventure. Once the player has found a spot they want to settle down, that's where option #2 comes into play. No offline inventory spoilage is great, but at this stage of the game, inventory space is very limited. The same as singleplayer, the player doesn't want to put effort into food that will spoil before they can reasonably eat it, and they're also going to want inventory space for collecting other resources, so they don't want to use more slots than necessary for food either. However, once they have a claim set up, they can build a cellar, which gives them a place to store more food and retrieve it as needed. They'll still need to keep track of their food stores, of course, since what they don't eat will eventually rot, but this setup does allow them to enjoy the same mechanics as everyone else(singleplayer included) without worrying about everything rotting if they can't play for a while. For the record, both of these options exist as mods, to my knowledge. There's at least four different options. https://mods.vintagestory.at/offlinenospoil https://mods.vintagestory.at/show/mod/60475 https://mods.vintagestory.at/noofflinecontainerfoodspoil https://mods.vintagestory.at/offlinefoodnospoil