Rudometkin

I could make a video of it. I'm willing to try it sometime. Could either be a long play, or a highly edited "1 year farming in VS with X mod". Either way it would take time. If I am successful in learning, I will made my own mod that incorporates ideas like this. In that case I would definitely make a series of playthroughs with my mod. But I can't see myself making a video with the goal to change anyone's mind. When the objection is, "that's tedious", it is practically an irrefutable objection, because tedium is subjective. Probably the best I can do is show that other beloved mechanics are also "tedious" by the same standards that these suggestions are being judged by. Hope that makes sense.

Yes I agree, it would need to be handled carefully. It is achievable however. I am a fan of the toggle options. It's hard for me to imagine adding "dynamic crops" as a toggle option would be a bad idea.

That just makes me curious, why establish the impracticality? We already have upgraded light sources. If it becomes impractical, why not just use the upgraded light sources? That is why they were provided to us The reason I keep my base lit with standard torches is because I'm in a wilderness survival world that keeps yeeting my character all over the map. You say I'm arguing in bad faith, and I'm over here trying not to argue. So bizarre, man. I can't get along with people. I think I need to just leave the forums. It's unfortunate you see it that way. It's also unfair for you to assume my intentions. I wouldn't dare assume your intentions far enough to accuse you like that. I'm actually genuine and discuss in good faith. Let's keep this thread positive so the Hytale fans can see we're a healthy community!

Fantastic. Or, imagine upgrading your light source. That depends on how large the area I am lighting is. I couldn't dodge the question, because it wasn't even aimed at me. It was too vague. So I asked a logically prior question. You mentioned a base, I need to know which base you are referring to before I can answer. Now you switch the question. Largest base? IDK, this big: <----------> Not sure. Why? Sounds like you're using an example of an enormous project to make the idea of torches burning out a poor idea. I say they could be made to be upgraded. Maybe they should look into making it more difficult to obtain those upgraded light sources then. Idc, I'm interested in VS. Great!

Well okay, so what? Are you arguing that the only reason VS torch burnout is justified is because the light emits while you are holding the torch? It sounds like you are arguing against torches in general now. MC already requires you to place torches everywhere to prevent mob spawns, amounting to hundreds of torches if you want to secure large areas. MC also requires you to make loads and loads of tools if you want to landscape a large area. If you want to use less tools, upgrade them. Same goes for lighting. It's a solid system. Which base? It depends on the size of my base. I don't limit myself to a set number of torches to light my bases. That would be weird! Do you want logic? Candles are made of a different material, and lanterns are encased to block wind. Why? The point is there can be upgraded light sources that are meant for a more dynamic and immersive survival system. ----------- But I'm not intending to derail this thread. I'd rather it be more about Vintage Story than a Minecraft debate. I'm glad more people are discovering VS. It has a bright future ahead.

A large part of my point is that if creepers were added into Minecraft today, thousands, if not millions of players would say it ruins the game. Tedium, tedium, tedium. Can't even leave my base without the possibility of a green explosive plant monster that blends in with the grass sneaking up behind me and blowing up my base. People don't get it. They fall in love with solid videogame features, and then spend the rest of their time hating on more solid videogame features in the same theme, while keeping a deathgrip on the ones they accepted. They accepted them because those ones were in the game first.

I always did. This is due to the upside to torches. They are useful even when you aren't engaging with them. Other tools are only useful while you actively hold them. The use of torches is to provide light. Using torches is having them placed. They are similar because they would lose durability while you use them, just like with other tools. Yes. And lanterns exist in MC, too.

I just made a gif of that exact moment for everyone's viewing pleasure.

I originally came from the Minecraft community. Before I discovered Vintage Story, I suggested torches should burn out instead of lasting forever (a key feature in Vintage Story)... these are some objections I got: "Torch burnout is a robbery of time" "Torch burnout is too stupid of an idea to be implemented" "Torch burnout is a joke" "Torch burnout is cringe" "Torch burnout is a garbage take - it would make survival more tedious and make building infinitely more annoying" "Torch burnout would be an annoyance, slowing down progression" "Torch burnout would limit the style of survival mode" "Torch burnout would make for a boring experience, not a more challenging or aggressive one" Presumably those same people have accepted the tool durability mechanic. They don't think it's a cringe robbery of time to have to make new tools. Yet a torch is a tool. So when I hear people complain about "grind" and "tedium", it usually does nothing to me. Then, thankfully some people from that same community recommended me to Vintage Story. An infinitely better game in my book.

I can't wait to start a bonefire with these two bones! Edit: Why do I keep finding bones in tree leaves?!

To be fair, Vintage Story is a farming simulator. It simulates farming. Ofcourse the richness of the farming simulator is the debate. ---------- I think if VS farming included weeds, mulch, and blight from the very beginning, then the vast majority of us here would be saying, "Farming is totally fine how it is" in regard to the weeds, mulch, and blight. I think we learn the complex systems of a game, figure out how to manage everything given the systems we learned to deal with, and then we fall in love with it. Then we try to close the doors on any development paths that shake up the systems we learned. We get comfortable with current systems and start to become outspoken against adding complexity to those systems, as if it would be a nightmare and destroy the game. When it is really just more of the complex systems we fell in love with to begin with. The end result is that we don't allow a game that is in heavy development to grow. We act like it is already completed. Already capped out. That's what makes people like Tyron solid game designers. They keep their options open. They know they can add mechanics like plant disease and make it work in the larger picture. They understand that rebalancing (making the game harder sometimes; as some call it, 'punishing' the player), is natural for games in heavy development. What we call "punishing" the player, a game designer calls "rebalancing".

Did you activate "Arthritis" in the world settings when you started the world? That'll make it difficult to pick items up when your character is busy with flareups from time to time. ---------- O.K., I know this will sound crazy, but it's worth a try: Open your character screen and take off/reapply any armor or clothing items you have equipped. I have known this to solve a visual glitch with my character before. If there are any floating blocks that are waiting to be picked up, try destroying the blocks beneath them. That seems to have solved some people's similar problems based on what I read. While it might not really make sense why that would fix the pickup item glitch, it may be worth trying to find a few different triggers that might fix the issue. It also could be an overloading issue. I've heard of someone getting this issue after a landslide happened, which indicates it may have been due to memory overload. Maybe? Also, check your settings to see if it is somehow switching to ['Sneak' to pick up items]. Hopefully someone with more knowledge on it can come in and help.

Dang, you don't trust me! Hahaha Also note I did not say there is "green light" on the subject, either. I just know Tyron is refreshingly thoughtful and open to consideration for Vintage Story. Also very busy!

I don't see this as an issue, because it does not have to require micromanagement. Fully neglecting a farm could have a rough estimate of X% yield decrease. Also, it seems to be no issue even if it did demand micromanagement. Early-VS survival demands micromanagement: torch burnout. Tending to the torch burnout mechanic might be an "aggravating chore" for certain player types. On this basis, shouldn't we also be advocating for torch burnout to be removed from the game and reduced to a mod? Certainly light is just as important as agriculture. Why only make the torch burnout haters suffer? Shouldn't we be supporting them so they can have more free gameplay as well?

Vintage Story isn't exactly a "one size fits all" type of game. It's an uncompromising wilderness survival game. So in theory, adding this kind of depth to farming is appropriate. In general these farming suggestions are great. They would need to be implemented carefully. If implemented carefully, the players who don't care to go in depth with their farming can take a rough estimation of, say, maybe 30% decrease in crop yield. The ones who do care can reap their rewards. So it doesn't have to "demand" anything from players, and the players who neglect their crops can still go on extended adventures. This could be a fair solution to at least begin introducing more in-depth farming mechanics. As for scalability issues, there are many solutions, and there is even justification on dismissing the "what if the farm is too big to take care of?" problem. The most direct answer to justify dismissing it, is: "One farmer can only handle so much". But the answer does not have to be so brutal. Progression can allow a farmer to manage larger farms. Mulch could guarantee weeds stay out for several weeks. So once every several weeks you may need to dedicate an entire day to the farm to mulch it. If you don't mulch at all, then you're looking at a yield cut. A yield cut does not necessarily mean 0 yield. But if it did mean 0 yield, then perhaps the farmer should stop trying to farm by way of neglection. Anyone who farms in VS is a VS farmer. Not all are passionate about it, and not all maximize their yields. This is a fine system. I have already spoken to Tyron personally regarding this subject, and he confirmed that he is always open to adding more depth to the existing mechanics. When he said this, the context was "Farming" and "Plant diseases". So there is no red light on weeds and plant diseases in the VS development room. I'm glad to see this suggestion here, and I'm glad I could leave you a realistic response that gives the suggestion some justice. I think if this is implemented, there should be certain plants that are more accustomed to certain climates. This way the farmer has a "proper" solution to the problem. Don't grow X plant in Y climate, or else it may struggle more.

Semantics: The study or science of meaning in language. Why do you want me to stop studying language on a forum based on written language? As I mentioned in my OP: if words don't have meanings, and it doesn't matter who is right or wrong, then this forum would be an irrational cluster of meaninglessness. Please stop discouraging me to learn. Thank you, Gabe

I didn't see the comment either, but just a quote of it. Apparently it wasn't a full quote based on what echo weaver said. I just know it to be demonstrably false and stated with more authority than mere opinion. Tyron demonstrably takes feedback and handles it well.

A fairly stated opinion like that one would be prefaced with "I think", or "In my opinion". To state it boldly without a preface like that is a declaration. I agree with Tyron there.

Great post! I hope everyone reads it! I think one complex issue that is difficult to solve, but easy to mistake people as doing, is whether someone is being pedantic or in some other manner of insincerity. I for one have personal experience occasionally being called insincere when I address issues and comments with great detail. I think if someone gives a comment justice by addressing every angle of it thoroughly, it wouldn't necessarily be fair to call them insincere for it. But it does happen, and it has happened to me many times throughout my years despite me being honest and sincere. Being thorough on an internet forum is not something to be ashamed of. So I would add: Let's all be more careful in how we make judgements on people, whether they are new members or veteran members. It would be great if maybe we all asked questions more, and maybe assumed honesty in each other more.

The DM?

Excellent. Now you revealed that we need to step back and establish whether I have even enforced principles, while you have not. Since, it would not be fair for you to act as though I am enforcing principles if I am not. I allowed you to establish without basis that I "enforced" principles. I didn't mind a relaxed definition of "enforce", until you just refused to allow yourself the same critique. Since you seem to be so lenient on what "enforcing" is when charging me with it, but critical on it when I charge you with it, I need you to show how I am enforcing, without it being the same thing you are doing. Then we can have a fair reevaluation on it from there. Following? How am I enforcing principles upon the community? Or, why did you bring it up to begin with? Earlier I had mentioned 'reinforcing principles' that you agree are good things for this community. But reinforcing is not the same as enforcing. Have you been mistakenly equivocating these? One might think so, because I used the word 'reinforce', and you used the word 'enforced' right after. What did you mean when you first brought up the word "Enforce"? But a problem I see with your position now, is this: I mentioned reinforcing truth and meaning as principles. In that context, you replied "to enforce principles is a short, puritanical path to evil". Then, you later affirmed those same things, "truth and meaning", are "certainly good" for this community. So you have implied: "To enforce things which are 'certainly good within our community' is a short, puritanical path to evil". This is a problematic statement. You might say, "I was speaking in general, not referring to the principles you were referring to". But then, if you were not referring to "truth and meaning" in your original comment about enforcing principles leading to a puritanical path to evil, then you were being irrelevant with me from the beginning. It is fair for me to assume you were being relevant in your replies. So the threads of that argument of yours are beginning to unravel, and are looking like a large mess of inconsistent and amiss propositions when added together. I am part of the community. So that doesn't work. Behave, General

Is this in itself universal? --- You say meaning isn't a principle, but it is. Regardless, it is a value. A value you say is unavoidable. How would this not be universal? And how do you define universal?

One of my favorite things about Vintage Story is that it offers customizable difficulty options. It can't be said to be only uncompromising therefore!

Meaning and Truth: Thank you for helping to prove my point, bud!

Where?