Teh Pizza Lady

Ah I see that now... yeah your wording did NOT give that impression when I first read it.

This is why my computer science classes when I was getting my degree were 50 the first semester, 20 the 2nd semester, 15 the next and so on. By the time I got to my 4th year of university, we were down to 4 of us. The 30 students that dropped out or changed majors after the 1st semester were copying and pasting their answer. I remember one kid who said he had an uncle who was a top developer at some firm and would help him out. He showed up with a hand-written note and zero clue of what he was doing. AI is now enabling these folks to pursue whatever it was that first drew them to Computer Science in the first place. But make no mistake, if I put joke responses on Stack Exhange or code that compiles but does nothing on my GitHub, someone copies it or an AI picks it up and makes a mess out of someone else's program, that baggage is on them, not me. Using code you don’t understand has always been risky, whether it came from Stack Exchange, GitHub, or an AI. If a person chooses to borrow code they don't understand, they are alone in bearing the weight of responsibility for the outcome. Nobody forced them to take shortcuts. Nobody forced them to borrow without asking what it did. Nobody forced them to use it without vetting it. Those were their choices and theirs alone to make. As the old saying goes, "You made your bed, now lie in it."

might be a bug since a while back the crude bow and the simple bow had the same crafting recipes. However getting the 12 flax fibers for a simple bow would be much better than trying to rely on the crude bow. In fact the simple bow is so much better than the crude bow that I don't recommend its use at all if the other is available to you.

AI is a crutch - but a crutch isn't the problem. Refusing to heal is. The risk isn't that AI makes things easier. It's that easier makes it tempting to stop struggling, and the struggle is where the actual learning happens. AI will always be faster than an actual developer. Understand what it's doing, what you're asking it to do and why is key to understanding how to use it. When it inevitably goes away, what will we be left with? Developers that don't know how to code. I'm seeing it happening already. The danger lives in the developer's habits, not the technology. AI doesn't prevent you from learning. It just makes avoidance cheaper. That's a discipline problem, not an indictment of the tool.

contaminated enough that it looks like something that fell out the backside of a drifter. It doesn't even burn as hot as peat, but it has a +25% burn time modifier and so it would still be nice to toss it into the forge to keep ingots and whatnot warm until the bellows can be used. You can find piles of the stuff in the new dungeons they added, so it can be a really cheap and easy fuel to have when you're first starting out. Not being able to use it in the forge hurts that a bit and makes it a bit less of a lucky find.

No, reading an AI summary and applying what you learn is no different from reading Stack Overflow or a wiki page. The AI was just a search and summary tool. It's often wrong anyway. No, using AI to navigate a codebase is no different from asking a senor developer "how does this work" or "what does this do". You still have to understand it yourself and apply that knowledge yourself. The work is yours. No, there are only 2-3 ways to do for loops. The syntax is pretty rigid. AI didn't create anything, it just replicated the standard. Disclosure isn't required because, functionally, it doesn't change anything. If the mod is a soulless blob of code, you'll know the moment you look at it. If it isn't, then what does it matter how it was made? I wouldn't worry about it until Anego Studios says you have to. I don't judge mods based on how they were made. I judge them based on whether the dev took the time to actually create something. The tool the dev used is inconsequential. Writing the IL codes by hand to replicate a for loop doesn't make the mod better. It just means you spent a needless amount of time doing something that I could have done by typing "for" in Visual Studio and mashing the TAB key twice to complete the auto-suggestion shortcut. On the broader question of AI use in modding, I do understand the drive to push back. AI has made it almost trivial to flood any creative space with hollow output, be it writing, drawing, or coding. That erodes trust in everything around it, including the things that were designed with love and care by a human. That's a legitimate frustration. However I think there is a tendency to "throw the baby out with the bathwater", so to speak. I'd like to gently suggest that the frustration is being aimed at the tool rather than the lackluster behavior. The actual problem isn't the use of AI, but how it's used, whether the user was actually engaged with the tool or just blindly turning wrenches until something worked. Those are entirely different scenarios and conflating them means you're keeping a gate that blocks people with a real vision and minimal know-how from making that vision a reality and creating something with potential. Photography went through this. There was a time when darkroom skill was the measure of the serious photographer; the hours spent developing the film, blindly dodging and burning the image into the photopaper and then developing it only to find that something went wrong and the whole process had to be redone. Then digital happened and then Photoshop and then Lightroom and then phone cameras that put all the photo settings at the users' fingertips. At each step, people called it the death of "real" photography. At each step, the tools and the medium produced work, real work, worth looking at, made by people who cared about the craft. The tools changed. The craft adapted. Darkroom photography is still a thing and some people still prefer it, btw. And there are darkroom photographers who produce junk that either collects dust or ends up in the recycling bins. But the train didn't stop for photography and it's not stopping for coding either. The modders who figure out how to use the AI tools and use them well, not to replace their better judgement but to extend their capabilities, to spend less time fighting the syntax of a for loop and more time getting their ideas into code form... these are the modders that are going to keep shipping great work. And you can see it in action if you only know where to look. For what it's worth, my day job has me writing code by hand. The tools they want us to use are old and more often than not I'm having to correct mistakes that could easily have been fixed if someone had taken the time to just outline what the code did and fix the logical errors. An AI tool could do this in minutes. And the less time I spend fighting bugged code, the more time I can spend getting my actual ideas out into working form. At the end of the day, I'm tired, my brain is tired, and all I want to do is play VS, Minecraft, or some other fun game while my brain recovers in the background. That usually leaves me with a couple of hours at the end of the day to try to write my own ideas into code form. If an AI tool can make that happen faster, then... I'm going to use it. Not because I'm lazy. Not because my ideas are uninspired, but because the alternative is not making the mod at all. I wouldn't want that. My co-author wouldn't want that. The users of my mods wouldn't want that. 90% of it is hand-coded anyway. All the AI did was dig through the VS codebase to find method, field, and property names, show me how to connect to them, and point out goofs, glitches, or gotchas in my code. The "worst" case scenario is I ask it the question, "Is there a better/cleaner way to do xyz" and it gives me a few options that I choose from and try to implement. There is no other way I could have figured out that the __state of a Harmony pre/postfix pair can be any object, even one that is custom defined in the code to pass any amount of data between the the prefix and postfix, and thereby eliminating the need for my code to rely on sensitive transpilers that break every time the game updates anyway. TL;DR: AI is a tool like anything else. Judge the work, not the workflow.

Hello @XeniousThe2nd, and welcome to both the forums and the game! Yes, items that you drop in the world will actually despawn after 10 minutes, I believe. Other block games do this, too and are much less forgiving on the time you have to collect them once dropped. However there is hope. You can just type /tpwp [starts with name] to get to your death waymark or /gm c to hop into creative mode and fly there and then /gm s to get back into survival once you have recovered your stuff. Once in creative mode you can use F1 and F2 to increase your flying speed. Best of luck!

Now fix the contaminated coal not being able to be used in the forge!

only just a bit. XD They can ram you pretty hard, but they don't typically commit to prolonged attacks. It's going to be hard to model it properly but their damage shouldn't be that high unless you're just standing there waggling your hiney in their faces. Check their damage tier. if it's tier 2 or higher, it's gonna pack a wallop no matter in the early game.

Skyrim doesn't make you carry separate money pouches for your gold coins and you can carry tens of thousands of those. Rusty gears are your currency in this game so I think it's a bit of an olive branch that the devs are letting them stack up to 1000. I have never seen that many gears at once when playing the game, so it would be interesting to know how you or anyone accumulated that much wealth in the game.

That's a really nice idea, but unfortunately I don't think it will work for the same reason the devs made it so that only naturally spawning pine (and acacia) trees will have a chance to produce resin. They really do not want the players to be able to easily setup farms for specific resources outside of crops and animals.

Yes, your lab tests were very standardized. Which is exactly the point I was making and you missed it. The fact that you had to specify standardized slugs, specific ranges, specific velocities, specific strike locations, and specific armor types to make your point... is exactly my point. Real world scenarios are too complex and too variable-dependent that they cannot be cleanly modeled in a video game, which is why it shouldn't even try. That is why spears sit in that space between specialized melee weapons and specialized ranged weapons. Spears are given a boost in ranged damage to compensate for their added windup/aiming time. The melee damage was nerfed because people were using spears instead of actual melee weapons. The windup/aiming time was added because people were using spears instead of actual ranged weapons. If we were to implement your proposed changes, we would be undo-ing all the balance work the devs have performed on them. The only reason I keep coming back to this topic, besides feeling very strongly about the spear balance, is that this conversation has happened at least three times on this forum before and it always ends badly. We're too deep into it now to just walk away cleanly. Which is a thin hint that you may be right in some places (and I do concede that) but there is still a hard line in the sand, and we can't cross back over it. Do what Thorfinn said to create your own mod to balance the spears the way you want in your own game. Make it as realistic as possible. Then do the scientific thing and write down which weapon you tend to reach for first. Make a note of why. Come back and report your findings. I have a guess what your reply will be. Hint: It won't be the falx. Sometimes things are just better left alone despite knowing better. My partner doesn't get mad during hospital scenes in movies even though they do everything wrong and she's a nurse. I don't get mad during bad hacking or computer operation scenes in video games even though they're unrealistic and poorly acted. Sometimes when things have drifted so far beyond what you KNOW to be true in your own mind, you just have to let it go and enjoy it for what it is. My advice to you, speaking as a fellow neurodivergent, is to take a deep breath and get used to things being inaccurate in video games. Good advice. I'm dropping this thread and no longer responding to any replies. There's nothing more that can be said by anyone now at this point moving forward, without pushing the issue into personal attacks.

The actual biology of neuropsychology does not even support this claim. In fact, saying that the brain is not plastic enough any more is just a thinly veiled excuse to get out of trying something new. Too much time and energy has been sunken into this thread that fixing the problem himself is no longer something that OP is willing to concede at this point, I would wager. He has spouted numerous inaccuracies, many of which have been addressed at length, the most recent of which I have examined being his Level IIIA body armor claims regarding shotgun slugs. Level IIIA stopping a slug is a bare minimum for passing at a certain range with a certain weight slug fired at a certain velocity and striking the armor at a certain location. "Stopping" even is inaccurate because the slug doesn't bounce off, it is allowed to penetrate and deform the surface underneath up to 44mm before it can be considered a failure. Put that armor on your head and shoot it with a slug and you'll find out real fast just how plastic your brain really is! XD

I'd be more worried about the bears claws at that point.

I have created a mod for this actually. XD Stacks Cool Slower mod also makes them heat just a bit quicker

I will DM you.

As I said, I am working on a mod that encompasses a lot of this information.

I'm actually working on a mod that addresses some of this stuff as a companion mod to Expanded Stomach.

I tested this in single player and you are correct. Brown bears do not get knocked back at all. Black bears do. Smaller animals do as well. I didn't try polar bears because they're bigger than brown bears.

Knockback for thrown spears is already in the game. I could see it being added for thrust spears as well.

I'm only responding because you quoted me and misread my words as sour grapes. It wasn't. I'm also responding because you keep claiming that I got the physics wrong, but have yet to actually point out what I got wrong. Was it my formulas? Or was it the fact that I found them with a quick Google search instead of years of study and research with ballistic gel in a controlled lab environment and said "good enough" and moved on with my life? Let's go back to where this started. Your original post said that higher thrown damage was "counter-intuitive." My response was simple: faster objects hit harder than slower objects. That is well known by anyone who has ever watched a car race and seen them crash. NASCAR is a classic example of a lightweight race car crashing harder than a much heavier street car by the simple fact that the race car is doing over triple the street car's speed. The only reason the crashes aren't worse is because of all the safety equipment and gear they have in those cars. Or to put it another way: tape a cannonball to the front of a tank and drive it into a fridge. Then shoot the same fridge with the same cannonball from the same tank. The tank delivered more total energy by orders of magnitude. The fridge has opinions about which one actually went through it. All of those are modeled... I THINK... in your formulas and lab test and ballistic gel experiments. I'm not entirely sure at this point because they all missed the mark on the actual question In fact, the only problem I have with your arguments is that every time I gave a clean answer to the question on the table, the question changed. The original question was simple, as was my answer. I answered it with KE = 1/2 mv^2 and the answer was yes. Your first response didn't challenge the physics, it argued game balance (which was also address by other posters because if the spear does more damage then why use a falx??) and proposed adding full wielder mass to a stationary thrust, mixing two completely different scenarios. Then the mass argument escalated with an 80kg + 10m/s figure that compounded the same error. Then the conversation became Force-Time curves, weird formulas that are impossible to type with a keyboard, impulse vs peak force, armor penetration coefficients, ballistic gelatin studies, paywalled experimental archaeology papers, and AI-generated graphs, all of which complicated the issue well beyond the original question. None of it was the question. The question was "Should a thrown spear do more damage than melee spear." The answer was yes, because it HITS harder. The goalposts left the entire stadium and are watching the game two cities over. I concede one thing genuinely: "pay better attention in class" was the wrong delivery for a correct point. The point itself stands. I concede the tone, not the argument, and not because you out-argued me. I recognized the tone could have been better, and that we had drifted into measuring different things entirely where continuing to argue past each other wasn't useful. I do appreciate you taking the time to work on yourself, but the path to the high road should have come much sooner from both of us. That said, I still firmly believe the game shouldn't include your lab models because the variables required to properly model a hit with a spear do not exist in the code. I've seen it, I work with it, I've written mods to change it. It doesn't measure the angle of the target, the forces applied at the moment of impact, or any of the other variables your models depend on. It cares about two things: whether you hit the target, and whether you are in range of the target hitting you back. I still do not agree that any of this changes the number in the game. The thrown spear should hit harder. At least... the barn post agrees with me... And I would wager that from a balance standpoint (of making the spear a hybrid weapon that can used as both melee and ranged) that it should exist in a place between proper melee and ranged weapons. The longer wind-up and aiming time for the spear wouldn't feel as good if the ranged damage were lowered. The player base agrees with me on this. Having higher melee damage to make it comparable to the falx at each tier would render that weapon useless. The devs agree with me on this. I'm not sure which crowd you are in.

Any argument you could make for thrusting a spear into the side of a bear should come with the requirement that it be made while actually thrusting a spear into the side of a bear in real life. Then and only then you will understand why throwing > thrusting. I have to side with the devs on this one, no matter what the graphs say. The human body isn't a hydraulic press. It's a bag of fleshy snacks held together with bony toothpicks all wrapped up in a convenient wrapper called clothing and armor. A mere hindrance to the determined predator, really. to be perfectly fair, he started it. EDIT: @DeanF After a thorough review of your posts, I can confirm that you are right. But only when the spear is thrust by a rigid robot with zero flex or give at an unarmored, stationary, cooperative target that doesn't move, fight back, or have opinions about being stabbed...like a bear Your physics are sound when the conditions are ideal in a lab. However in a real encounter, the conditions will never be ideal. The target has a vote, your body is not a rigid force-delivery machine (your grip slips or shifts, your elbows flex, your shoulder rotates to absorb recoil; the body is full of involuntary shock absorption systems that cannot be overridden even with perfect technique), and a thrown spear just simply... does not care about ANY of that. Because it can't. Because you already threw it as hard as you could. It's a video game and the number for throwing a spear simply is higher because you are literally throwing away your weapon after a lengthy wind-up and aiming period. It just feels better. When the thrown damage was nerfed, the player base rioted. Also I threw a homemade spear at a barn once. It stuck in the wooden pole. I got in trouble. Why did I throw the spear? Because it didn't hurt my hands like stabbing the pole did and it was an imaginary enemy that I just couldn't damage otherwise because thrusting the spear just didn't deal the same kinetic force as throwing it did. Idk what else to tell you, dude.

sees changes to hunger system has authored at least 2 mods that use said hunger system Welp I guess I'll go update my mods now! XD

"It's a solo game" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here, because Vintage Story is not only a solo game. It has full multiplayer support, active community servers, and TOPS -- the official public test server -- is frequented by a large number of players as well as the developers themselves. Changes to base game mechanics don't exist in a vacuum where only one person will ever experience them. They ship to everyone. The concern wasn't hyperbole. It was a straightforward walkthrough of how the proposed change interacts with existing systems, using the game's own mechanics as the framework. Whether anyone would actually perform that specific sequence is beside the point -- the point is that the design space matters, because the devs have to consider it whether we do or not. I'm also not sure "fringe use" and "what is it to you" are really the counterarguments you want to be making here, because the answer to both of those is: game design. The reason we're all in a suggestions forum discussing whether a mechanic should exist is precisely because these things are worth thinking through before they ship. That's the job this forum exists to do: weigh ideas and demand better thought where they are found wanting.

hard to poke when the poking bit is pointing in the wrong direction, eh?