Teh Pizza Lady

No, I really didn't. I copied and pasted it and explained the disagreement of which it had full context. AI is notorious for mistakes. Don't trust them even if they agree with you. They are not experts. In the future I would refrain from using AI in your responses. All of mine came from Googling the topic of projectiles in motion and my own basic knowledge of forces in motion. But to get back on track, I think perhaps where the disagreement is coming from is that I'm using simple models that would be reflected in a video game where you're asking the game to perform a full ballistics simulation model on every projectile. That is simply not feasible because you would have to account for variations in spear head weight, size, and even shape as some spears will do more damage than others. One one hand I can sort of understand your arguments, but the instant you perform a full thrust with the spear instead of the "poke" that we do in game, you're lodging your spear deep into a target that's going to be very, very angry about it. You're also equating a thrust with a continuous push which is closer to charging your target with the spear and is clearly not what happens in game. A quick summary of thrusting a spear shows that the force of the spear would travel about as far as the user could push it. The mass imparting the force would be equivalent to the mass of the spear and whatever limbs were carrying it. The force itself would be equivalent to the force needed to move the spear that distance at that speed. The velocity is much much lower in this case, and thus imparts a lower impacting force on the target than the sheer force of a thrown projectile. At that point, the limiting factor would be the user's grip and whether the target was able to retaliate. These factors will severely limit the user's ability to impart the "continuous force" you seem to think should be happening here. Sorry but even if you are correct on a technicality, the way you're trying to apply the concepts is incompatible with how the game actually works, which is poking with a one-handed thrust vs hurling the spear. I've seen enough videos of people standing too close to the Olympic javelin toss to allow the thought that a thrusted spear could deal more damage.

I copied and pasted our entire conversation for context with a brief explanation: "The OP of this thread and I are disagreeing on this subject. My claim is that a thrown spear will have a higher Kinetic Energy (KE) than a thrusted spear. He deflected with a knife comparison, I challenged him on this as throwing knives aren't part of the game we're discussing and tried to refocus the discussion back on spears. This is his final comment to me:" And then posted your last comment. So like... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Okay.... here's what it said verbatim: It is: thrust = lower peak velocity, longer controlled force application throw = higher peak velocity, shorter uncontrolled impact Those are different interaction models, not competing energy systems. In short, it sounds like the OP has a basic grasp of the fundamental concepts, but is missing the mark on how to correctly apply them. It then expressed an interest in ending the thread here: Then I asked if I could just copy and paste the response and it said: Well I copied and pasted it verbatim. lol. but hey you told me to ask it and I did.

I thought we were talking about spears... Anyway, you’re also mixing up sustained force with impact energy. A thrust lets you keep pushing, but a thrown weapon delivers its energy in a single impact, and that impact scales strongly with velocity. I know this because I did pay attention in physics class. Here are the formulas for kinetic energy (KE), momentum (p), and force (F). KE = 1/2 * m * v^2 p = m * v F = m * a Impact energy scales with velocity squared (v^2), so higher speed = much harder hit than a slower hit with more mass behind it. In gameplay terms, that distinction matters. A thrown spear is a one-use, high-risk action where you lose the weapon, so it should hit harder on impact. A thrust is repeatable, controlled, and reliable, so it makes sense for it to have lower per-hit damage but higher consistency. For rough comparison: A ~4 kg spear thrust at ~10 m/s is ~200 J of energy. If the spear is thrusted much slower (because 10m/s is a generous speed!) then the number goes even lower. KE = 1/2 * 4 * 10^2 = 200 J A thrown spear in realistic human ranges (~25–35 m/s) is: KE = 1/2 * 4 * 30^2 ≈ 1800 J That’s an order of magnitude higher energy on impact, even before considering penetration dynamics. If they hit the same, or thrusting is stronger than throwing, then, there's no point in throwing spears or even using them. Just use a falx for melee since it hits way harder and a bow/arrow for projectiles since those are more accurate and can fire much faster.

That's really the most interesting way I've seen someone say, "This is better suited as a mod". This "no tools" challenge... is that NO tools at all, or just no crafting of tools (like you can still loot the cracked tool vessels)? If it's no tools AT ALL then this this doesn’t meaningfully improve the experience it’s targeting, and it risks undermining progression elsewhere. It will also only appeal to a minimal handful of players and will either go ignored or unused by the rest of the players. Either way without tools, you can't harvest dead animals so you don't really need a firepit except to cook porridge and fish. You won't be chopping wood so no pies or other baked goods. You will be stuck in the pre-stone age with no weapons, no armor, and no way to really defend yourself or survive except for praying that you can find food and the next wolf/bear won't send you back to spawn... And even then the only fuel you'll be able to use is either more sticks or peat which are readily available but hard to obtain in barren areas. I don't see any value in this suggestion.

Javelins aren't a thing in the game. There’s no reason to invent a separate “weaker thrown spear” tier just to justify a balance point. You're solving a problem that doesn’t exist. But in short, yes, spears should do more damage when thrown. They have higher kinetic energy than thrusting with a spear. Physics says that faster objects hit harder than slower objects. If you don't believe me, pay better attention in class.

The Blackguards favor shortswords because they were typically deployed as enforcers using a sword-and-shield style. A longsword, as you pointed out, is generally a two-handed weapon, so it doesn’t really fit as their preferred choice once you consider how they operate in the game’s lore. You were also right to pick up on the pseudo-European tone. In that kind of setting, anything described as "black" was often viewed through a superstitious lens, associated with something less noble or upright. That contrast becomes clearer when you put them alongside knights. Knights are often depicted with longswords, weapons that demand space, control, and a certain deliberate presence in combat. They are less about crowd control and enforcement and more about formal battle, duels, or standing as visible symbols of authority. The longsword, in that sense, complements the image: it is measured, disciplined, and, in the cultural imagination, tied to honor. Blackguards sit on the other end of that spectrum. Their shortswords suit close quarters, cramped indoor spaces (perhaps those of survivor hideouts?), quick engagements, and the reality of keeping order rather than embodying it. Where a knight’s weapon reinforces the idea of nobility and righteousness, the Blackguard’s gear reflects function over ceremony. The difference isn’t just mechanical, it reinforces how each group is perceived. Knights are meant to be seen and admired, even idealized. Blackguards are meant to be effective, and if they’re feared or mistrusted in the process, that almost seems to be part of their role. Shortswords also require less material and less work to make than longswords. Given the circumstances that birthed the need for the Blackguards, it's quickly understood why that was their weapon -- not by choice, but necessity. I'm sure there were some who believed them to be noble and upright denizens of the dying land as indicated by some conversation you can have with a certain NPC in the game after you've advanced the story to a certain point, but that view was not held by the majority who feared and even sometimes hated the Blackguards.

in order: dunno, dunno, and... ... never!

I can agree with most of these, but you still need a knife to get the dry grass to use as tinder so you still need knapping to make a fire. Go make an axe and chop wood.

I voted for the new logo but only because I like the clarified shading and because I think it's important for a game's logo to be consistent with the art style of the game itself. You wouldn't expect a game like CyberPunk to have a watercolor logo or something like Apex Legends to have balloon art. Usually the game's logo is taking from something visually striking from the game itself that is easily recognizable and people can point to it and say "Yes, that's Vintage Story." What the old logo does right: Simplicity in design. The original logo understands restraint. The tree, the floating island, the clock. That’s the identity. It doesn’t try to over-explain itself, and it doesn’t need to. The larger shapes do the heavy lifting, while the finer details are implied rather than forced. It leaves mystery and allows the player to discover that there is more than what is apparent from the surface. Separation of the text from the logo. The tree is the logo. The text is the brand. They are treated as separate elements, which gives both room to breathe. Nothing is fighting for attention, and the viewer can process the image cleanly. Thematic consistency. Everything points back to the tree. The greens and browns are cohesive, and the gears are understated. They exist just enough to create curiosity without pulling focus. The logo knows what it’s about and doesn’t drift from it. Even the colors of the text match the colors of the logo, giving them a visually jarring look that draws attention to them in just the right way that leaves the viewer slightly unsettled. Not so much that they look away, but just enough that they look at it and think "Something isn't quite right here", which lends more to the game than you might realize. What the new logo does right: Deeper contrast. The new design introduces stronger light and shadow. The added contrast in the canopy and the darker underside of the island give the image actual depth instead of letting it sit flat. It reads faster and more clearly because of it and draws the eye to the image as a whole. More defined shading. Lighting feels intentional instead of evenly spread. The tree is broken into readable forms, highlights and shadowed masses, which gives it structure and makes the whole piece feel more grounded in realism which is a whole thematic element of the game itself. A stronger, fuller tree. This is where the new design carries the most weight. The added branches and the expanded canopy give the tree presence. It feels older, healthier, and more established. The silhouette is bigger, clearer, and more recognizable. The tree is the anchor of the whole design. Improved silhouette clarity. The overall shape of the tree and island reads much more cleanly. You can recognize it at a glance without needing to rely on internal detail, which is exactly what a strong logo should do. You could lose half the details of the logo with the clockwork, steampunk machinery and condense it down to just what is in the first image without losing ANY details in what the image represents. Better depth in the base. The underside of the island and the gears have more separation and shadow, which helps sell the idea that this is a layered object rather than a flat cutout. The visual depth is more pleasing to the eye. What could work better: Not a complete redesign, but a visual clarification of original logo. Same identity, same tone, same intent. What a proper logo needs to do is: Keep the visual clarity of the old logo Add the depth and contrast of the new logo Keep the updated tree so it actually carries visual weight Keep the simplicity so it feels intentional instead of overloaded As it stands, the new logo appears, visually, more playful than grounded, which makes it feel closer to something aimed at a younger audience. That’s a noticeable shift from the creator’s description of Vintage Story as being like The Other Block Game, "but for adults."

this one is quite simple: you have food recipes and non-food recipes. In order for a non-food recipe to be cooked, it must be done so in a dirty cookpot or else it will foul the cookpot and make it unusable. It's just part of how the game determines if you're cooking food or something else. correct, because the intended path to leather is finding limestone or chalk. Borax can be used as a substitute, but the reason it's gated behind bronze is because of how it's used as a flux between the two halves of an iron anvil to forge weld them together. I have opinions about this, too, but I believe the difference between the lime water and quicklime is that the quicklime is used for mortar preparation and the ground limestone is just to differentiate between the two. I do not understand why one is required over the other and honestly I might see if I can create a mod that fixes this if one does not already exist. Not sure if this is the best solution, but I get where you're coming from. The major problem I have with this is what to do with the lead-lined still once you're done... Usually sturdy leather is kind of a one-time end-game process.

I have also noticed this. The problem I see is that some people want or expect the current behavior in the game so I guess you have to weigh and balance retraining yourself to use the game's current controls and click actions or asking everyone else to retrain themselves to use your desired controls and click actions.

Step 1: kill deer for antlers Step 2: use antlers to dig for stone Step 3: use stone to craft spears/axes Step 4: use spears to hunt for deer repeat as needed until you realize it's a catch 22 and will never be resolved without a lucky break Without axes, you have no firewood so you are limited to whatever raw ingredients you can find on the ground. Perfect, I guess for the vegan player, but a LOT of stuff is locked by killing your first animal including larger inventory and warm clothing for the winter. no offense to the person you're replying to, but from what I'm reading this idea is better suited for a mod to increase the early game difficulty or for players who want a more traditional vegan survival route. If it were part of the base game, I would probably create a mod to revert it.

Right, so the only cost there is against the company at that point, which kind of contradicts what most advocates for piracy claim (that it hurts no one).

If you're gaming with friends, projects like that can absolutely be a lot of fun.

the Crude AND Recurve bows, actually. Everyone else can only make the simple and long bows.

PC gamer learns about firewalls and ports. More on that at 5. Back to you, Sharon.

I get what you're saying, but you are losing me at the "no lost sale" argument. It assumes something that cannot be proven. Whether a person would have bought the game under different circumstances is subjective. Piracy removes the possibility of knowing entirely. I agree that it's worse when someone steals something they can afford, but stealing is still stealing. The inability to pay for a Disney ticket doesn't justify sneaking in anyway. It's still taking access to something I don't need without permission regardless of whether a cheaper ticket price would have allowed me to buy it. It's still wrong either way.

no, it made it WORSE... and I have a pretty high render distance, so everything in the distance was nearly folding over on itself, I couldn't see straight. Where I was trying to look was that dark spot in the sky.

I DON'T RECOMMEND THIS Drunk High Temporal Storm

Welcome to the forums! I understand your concern and share it somewhat however, I do not own or game on a Mac, so I cannot speak to any sort of experience with it. However I do have a functioning set of eyes and they noted a slight difference between the link you shared and your summary of it. This line in particular: To me this suggests that Rosetta will still be around, but its usage will be limited. I did a little digging around and found that Apple announced that they would be migrating away from Intel-based macs and transitioning everything over to Apple Silicon which is ARM64-based and arguably better at getting more work done for less power, thus reducing heat output and eliminating the need for noisy fans and reduced risk of thermal throttling under load. These are all things that Apple wanted to achieve and they have done so. Thus they implemented Rosetta which just acts as a translation layer between the Intel-based software and the ARM64 processor which cannot read or understand Intel-based instructions. However what's more true to my experience is that Anego works hard to ensure that their game will run on a vast array of machines ranging from potato computers to powerful gaming PCs. So what I would do is head to the VS Issues github repo here: https://github.com/anegostudios/VintageStory-Issues and tell them about this issue and see what happens in a few weeks, months or even over the course of the year. At this point, I wouldn’t assume Mac support is going away. More likely, over time, Mac builds for the game will simply shift toward Apple Silicon (ARM64) as the primary target, with Intel support left as a secondary download for those that still need it.

And sometimes you get readings that say nothing here... and sometimes you get... well... just look: That one reading had two bands of hematite and a HUGE halite dome.

google.com "how to report a post on the Vintage Story forums for hate speech"

No, I didn't make it to the bottom of the pit. I'll let you know if we get brave enough to digging that far.

this is funnier than my original post idk how to feel about that...