Rudometkin

Sure, but it is an alarming red flag when a community tries to silence people for discussing their comments with precision, in the name of 'harassment' and 'spam'. You ought to consider the implications of something like that. So you are not considering those different play styles and not respecting precise language and the value of it. How is it derailing, when I show the relevance of the points I bring up? It isn't. It's relevant. When traugdor asked a question about whether players should be "punished" for something, I made a point that it would not necessarily be "punishing" them. I even spent the time and careful consideration to go in-depth ahead of time to back the point up to where it is irrefutable (certainly no one has refuted it to date). If anything I should be commended for that, not ridiculed as committing a 'grave sin' (again, I actually provided the work to thoroughly support my point ahead of time, which happens to be a discouraged trait here. You call it a 'sin', on the false premise that it is a 'derailment'). My 'derailment' was demonstrably totally clear, justified and relevant. Frankly you just don't understand relevance when you see it sometimes, nor the importance of precise meaning, sometimes. And that's okay, we're all on different journeys and learning together. I can teach you something today, and you can teach me something tomorrow. Critiquing technically inaccurate terminology is relevant, not a derailment. It is not my fault when other people don't appreciate the level of detail I do. I have read and considered your point here. Here is my reply to that (note: if this is a new point, then this is relevant to the new point you brought up, not me, therefore if this is a derailment, it is a derailment on your end, not mine): We all have a responsibility to speak clearly. If you have a differing interpretation, you can give it a voice, and we can discuss it. I propose we have a responsibility to take people at their words using fair dictionary definitions as a tool to interpret the meanings of their messages, and that it would be a disservice if we shamed other people for doing so. Also, it would be a shame to shy away from critiquing people at all on the basis that "well, there could be some hidden meaning, or a dual interpretation that I don't understand, so therefore I will let this person go on ranting without critiquing them". Instead, go ahead and open a dictionary, and study fair uses of the words people are using, and address people at their words. It would also be a shame to say, "Well, this person is preaching some wild propaganda, nobody would actually be that extreme, so therefore they must be using their words in a way I don't understand". If something doesn't seem right to you, point it out. You can say hey, what do you mean by this? This doesn't make sense to me. Hey, this is what my dictionary says about this. Is this what you mean by that word? It's fair to take people at their words by common dictionary definitions. And if someone says "Hey, I appreciate your argument, but you based it off a different common meaning of a word I used. I actually meant this other common meaning when I used that word", you can say, "Hey, thanks for clarifying! Fairplay all around! I'll reconsider your argument with your intended definition in mind!" Also, when people use language in a sloppy manner, they have a responsibility to own up to it when people call them out on their poor use of words. There's my masterclass of how language works in a healthy community. With that said, I understand not everyone speaks with the same level of precision as I do. But stop demonizing me for addressing people's messages with precision and thoroughness. You ask if I am 'still' not convinced that the most precious resource the player has in any game is the player's time, as if it has already been established somewhere that I ever was not convinced that the most precious resource the player has in any game is the player's time. So I'm curious, are you just imposing that assumption into your argument here? Or, where did you conclude that? Where has it been established that I ever was not convinced that the most precious resource the player has in any game is the player's time? On that subject (note: if this is a new point, then it is relevant to the new point you brought up, not me, therefore if this is a derailment, it is a derailment on your end, not mine), if indeed the player's time is the most valuable resource, I propose this strictly (technically) answers nothing toward influencing game design in a particular objective direction. Since, the player being forced to stare at a black screen for 6 hours before they can advance to the next level could be a valued part of a game. One could say that would be a ridiculous game, but 'ridiculous' according to whose standards? Perhaps some people could love the challenge, and that is how they could prefer to spend their 'most valuable resource' of 'time'. Therefore, even if we suggest making a game filled with 'grinding' and 'slow' mechanics that offers little reward, it says nothing to whether we value their time. Interacting with those mechanics could be how they value spending their time. It would be a gross, narrow, inconsiderate oversimplification to other people's play styles if we argued, "Quick item progression = valuing player's time | Slow item progression = not valuing player's time", since some people prefer to spend their valuable time progressing slowly, especially the Vintage Story community in particular. I'll say it: Mic drop.

Don't buy the game again, unless you just want to help support the devs more for their fine work on this masterpiece of a game. You are entitled to what you paid for. Have you written a support ticket to Anego studios yet? That's what I would do, unless anyone here has any better solutions first. I think I should check with my friends to make sure their copies are working now.

I have noticed in my experience, lately we as a community in general favor shallow discussion and discourage deep discussion. However, I think that is not good for Vintage Story. I think Vintage Story will be better off if we instead value deep discussion when it happens to arise. Surely, Vintage Story itself is a result of deep discussion between the developers. When I am thorough, coherent, and relevant (with proper grammar and fair spacing) in my replies to some other members, I am told "noone is reading what I post" on the basis that I am "writing too much", and I get criticized for "having a response to everything". (This is precisely the part where in my experience, the general community discourages deep discussion. I often get told by a variety of people that they are not appreciating my posts, and I am concluding based off of the reasons they have provided that it is precisely because my messages are deep, thorough, and exhaustive). It even gets to the point where I am begged to not defend basic principles, such as the meanings of our words when we speak, and whether someone is right or wrong. (Even worse, when I defended these principles, it was said to be a threat to "valuable comments". When reinforcing 'healthy principles' is regarded as a 'threat', we know we have messed up somewhere as a community.) These principles are crucial to the value our community brings, and are always important and worthy of addressing no matter what the topic of discussion is. Otherwise, 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. I perceive on one hand, if we are not thorough in our replies, then we get attacked for dismissing "valuable points" and not listening. On the other hand, if we are thorough, then we get attacked for ranting about pointlessness - well, what happened to "valuable points"? Are we considering points to be "worthy of discussion" arbitrarily, only when it is convenient to us? And I want to put a spotlight on @Enjen for openly encouraging deep discussion and giving the deeper posts justice by reading them thoroughly, as fair members of our community generally should. I encourage everyone to not discourage deep discussion as some of us have been, because it is more fundamental and healthy than you might think. In fact, we could all generally benefit from reading more. Let's stop acting like a bunch of cave-dwelling drifters and appreciate when each other are logical. Thanks, Love you all, Vintage Story Community!

Despite me being a highly thorough and thoughtful member of this community who strives to be logical and encourage healthy discussion, there is talk about me being reported to Anego studios under the pretenses of "harassment, spam, and inciting arguments." I believe the harassment and spam charges are unfair. Inciting arguments can be a great thing for discussion, if the arguments are healthy. (I have hastily been called some ugly names here and treated quite unfairly, but as one of our more reasonable members have pointed, I don't seem to be attacking other people's characters like that). If any of you want to defend me before I potentially get banned, here would be a great place to do it. Otherwise, you could potentially sit back and watch a fair member of the community be unfairly excommunicated. With that said, I have faith in Anego studios that they would handle me fairly. I love Vintage Story. I just want to say, if I get banned from here simply for being unliked and generating argumentative discussion, then there's nothing I can do about that. I'll still continue to play Vintage Story, and continue to build a community of my own around it. Love you all, Vintage Story Community.

Words have meanings. I'm being logical, friendly and coherent here. What you are doing is discouraging logic. That is bad for the community. Imagine if we banned all logical people. Discussing the meaning of relevant words is precisely on topic. Of course being right or wrong matters. Do you want this forum to be full of wrong information? I don't. I want it to be full of correct, valuable, meaningful information. Help me get there. It is said that one of the first rules of critical thought is to define your terms.

Oh my goodness, the hours I have spent wanting to throw the Microsoft team into a lake while trying to simply get access to play Microsoft games I payed for. I have written my rants about them.

That button will never wear down (it's made of titanium steel, 12 inches thick) But it's not so much about what Tyron affirms it is, like an appeal to authority might suggest. It's about what the game is and how it is officially described. I even said in another post that if Tyron showed up and said something like, "this game is not an uncompromising wilderness survival game", or "not a challenge-based game", that we would all have the responsibility of respectfully disagreeing with him. See, Tyron is the 'authority' in that situation, and I bluntly said we should disagree with the authority if they disagreed what the game is and how it is officially described. That is precisely not an appeal to authority, but quite the opposite. Instead, it is a proper focus on the relevant content at hand. The game. It could be said that the game is the authority or that Tyron has authority to arbitrarily define the game however he wants to. In those cases, appealing to Tyron or the game description is precisely relevant, and not fallacious. Another way to approach this is to examine closely what an appeal to authority is said to be: An appeal to authority becomes fallacious when the person cited as an authority has no expertise in the specific field related to the claim. For example, citing a famous actor's opinion on a scientific matter. So I listened to you, and made my case thoroughly, showing why I don't think I am appealing to authority in a fallacious manner. Well I don't think so, especially in this case. I said, "Or", and then suggested the opposite. This is not me assuming the opposite was true on that basis. A suggestion is not an affirmation of necessity. I specifically was careful about not assuming the exact opposite was true merely on the basis that it was opposite. Also, due to the laws of logic (law of identity, law of contradiction, law of excluded middle: A=A, A does not equal nonA, something either equals A or nonA), some statements actually are true if others are false. But really what I've been doing lately is just showing everyone that, hey just because this person said this thing, doesn't make it true. I like to make it easier for the readers to decide for themselves. It helps to see both sides instead of being overstimulated by the loudest one. A healthy way of doing this is by saying, "Or", and then suggestioning the opposite could be true. Of course I don't do this in every case, just when I see it is appropriate. This encourages deeper discussion, rather than just people prancing around making arrogant assertions everywhere without backing them up. Like hey, you can say these wild things, but I can just as easily say the opposite. So now you ought to go deeper and support your claim with more than air. Because I've met you where you're at. Well I agree with this, except for the part where I'm misunderstood as doing that. I'm not saying any compromise for the players is bad (though I do have my fun making sure everyone knows I think more uncompromising is generally suitable for the game). Earlier I took special care to say, "I'm not for the game changing its core experience to make compromises for new players.", just in case this situation would arise. I specifically mentioned I'm not for the game changing its "core experience" in the name of compromising. This is because I understand occasional compromise for the player can be fine. So I am not so extreme about it that I say or teach that any compromise is bad, as you suggest. Just moreso that more uncompromising is generally suitable. And of course, it is a given that too much compromise is bad, on the basis that the game is meant to be uncompromising in general. I'm actually a lot more reasonable and thoughtful than many people here give me credit for. (Uh oh, I think I can sense some narcissistic accusations coming!) When the dev team releases an official description, I can rightfully speak on behalf of the dev team at least when I repeat what they have already established. Man, I can be a powerhouse with coherent replies. (Just giving myself some credit, which it is totally fine that we pat ourselves on the back sometimes, since I think I have been unappreciated here - except for Enjen noticing and standing up for me earlier) Since you summarized and I thoughtfully and carefully countered after listening to you carefully, it is only fair I make a counter summarization. 1. I did not fallaciously appeal to authority. 2. I did not fallaciously use loaded labels. 3. I did not devolve into sophistry. At least here in this thread. However, I could see how my posts come across that way at first glance. And if someone wants to make another argument to show I am, then I am willing to consider it. Can you respectfully see where I'm coming from in my summarization now?

Well I don't see how. How? Sophistry is to make fallacious arguments, to use subtly deceptive reasoning. Just because I have a counter whenever someone disagrees with me wouldn't mean I'm regressing into sophistry. That wouldn't be a fair assessment of my engagement. And it was just asserted. But not supported. You know, people could say it's obvious. That alone doesn't make it true, no matter how many people jump in and say it. In fact, if anything, it seems the wrongful assertion that one is regressing into sophistry would be the actual sophistry.

Poison arrow tips is such a good idea! That would be awesome.

Or, it is clearly not devolving into sophistry.

Yes it is, in a good way. But I'm all for it getting more uncompromising in the form of more complex systems and whatnot. The entire game is artificial. It's a simulated game. Artificial difficulty is difficulty. Difficultly and grind fall into the uncompromising aspect. Fine, then it should be more uncompromising, not less. Well, I affirm that F-ing you over is precisely uncompromising. But you are entitled to your opinion!!

Well with that said, I certainly think it can be or already is fun to many people of various kinds of groups as it is. I'm not for the game changing its core experience to make compromises for new players. Let's not forget it is specifically designed to be an uncompromising game about wilderness survival. It could be selling out to suddenly change the direction of the game just to lure more players in to take advantage of a new potential fan base.

I am also a southpaw, but it actually doesn't bother me. I have long ago adapted to this right-handed world. I'd support it seeing how there are people who want it.

I ended up with a useless vote because I voted for everything.

Dude, didn't you read the survival handbook you were given?! That works to drastically solve the learning curve problem. The information you need is right in your hands from day 1. Do you think it's the game's fault if people don't read the instructions? It literally supplies you with a book that contains knowledge for the necessities.

Hard disagree. I believe I demonstrably played over 12 hours in my first world (wilderness survival, and documented) before I ever cooked my first meal, and I loved and enjoyed every bit of the entire experience.

If the learning curve drops too low, it will lose what made it popular to begin with. Edit: Welcome to the Vintage Story forums!

No way! C is supposed to be the ultimate code language I thought?! That's precisely what I want to do! When I was a kid, I had part in making some rather simple mods with a friend for another game in the past. Don't remember the download counts, but we received a bit of money on the sheer amount of downloads by placing an ad website before the download, so we technically got paid off of the short ads whenever someone downloaded the mod, which was a thing my friend suggested because many people were doing it at that time. We received some positive feedback and generated over 120k views altogether, as well as having multiple content creators showcase them. It was a hot time for mods and content creators alike. Now I would rather work on a project that I fully own (have a few tiny ones), but Vintage Story is worth modding for.

We need to learn C# together! But I must say, I think I have the opposite problem as far as not having anything to say...

A concern has been arising lately in the suggestion forums where members are negatively referring to RNG a lot, seemingly demonizing it. This is fair, but it occurred to me that negative RNG is already in the game, and the game is still beloved by these same members. So this post is an effort to simply balance out what is being said about negative RNG. It is positive reinforcement that negative RNG can overall be for the 'greater good'. So when someone suggests some negative RNG should happen, they don't have to feel like they're necessarily making a poor suggestion when other members shut down their ideas on the basis that 'RNG = BAD'. RNG is random number generation. Indicating chanced based mechanics. If a game has high RNG, it will produce volatile (inconsistent, wildly different) game sessions. By negative RNG, I mean the chances for 'bad' things to happen in the game. More RNG can generally mean less control the player has. If a game has extremely high negative RNG, it could be unfair for the player, rarely giving the player chances to complete the game, if ever. As an example, I and other(s) have suggested plants should have a chance of contracting a disease, that must then be cured by the player. The plants having a chance to contract a disease is negative RNG. ----- Here are just a few examples of currently implemented negative RNG in Vintage Story: Hostile Animal spawns (wolves, bears, etc) Rift and Drifter spawns Getting struck by lightning ----- Without these negative RNG variables in Vintage Story, it would not be anywhere near the game it is today. More negative RNG can absolutely be a great addition to Vintage Story. Don't let anyone tell you that Vintage Story is maxed out on negative RNG. There can be more, and it can make the game even greater than it already is.

Great question. I don't think the phrase 'punish them' is the most accurate terminology, so I just want to voice that right off the bat. The world does what it does, and the player does what the player does. The player's job is to respond to the world, and that is generally a fun mechanic. When the world punishes a crop with disease, the most accurate terminology is that it punishes the crop, not the player. Sure, by extension, it can be 'punishing' the player. But in technical terms, it is flawed terminology, because it assumes the player is striving for a healthy crop. It could be that a carnivore player is farming crops, simply wanting to see how a crop will naturally exist in the world. In this playstyle, it would not be 'punishing' the player when the crop suffers a disease. In fact, it may excite the player. Now since the general intended use is to grow crops for their beneficial harvest, the terminology 'punishing the player' when a crop contracts a disease is accurate enough. I just wanted to establish that, because I haven't seen anyone else here do that yet. (And I am said to not be thoughtful and considerate to other players ) Starting players who do not have skill for proper water technique, nor access to good soil, nor cures, simply do not have ability to cure a disease should one arise. Perhaps in this early stage of the game, it is all about damage control. If you have 10 carrot plants and one happens to contract a disease from overwatering or poor soil, you should immediately be able to uproot it and replant it somewhere away from the other healthy plants. That diseased one may go the rest of its life without the disease getting any worse. Or, it could get worse and die off. Or, you could happen to obtain the cure later on and cure it. Or you could just throw it away if you want. This does not mean the player will die of hunger. However, if the rudimentary farm is neglected (high quality farms are more self-sufficient, and can be left alone with full assurance), then the disease could in fact wipe the entire farm out. Maybe they just have to search for more food, perhaps from a different source, until they can get more equipped to handle farming better without struggling so much. If this sounds too difficult for your liking, consider the chances. I intentionally did not suggest 1/100, or 1/10, or 1/4 would get infected by poor soil. What do you think would be good chances? If a crop in poor soil had a chance of contracting a disease every midnight, what would be a reasonable chance? 1/50? 1/100? 1/250? For overwatered crops, I propose each percentage of 'overwater' could be a percentage of chance that the crop contracts the disease at midnight. Or, the disease chance percentage could be a 1/10 fraction of the overwater percentage. So a 10% overwatered plant could have a 10% chance of contracting a disease at midnight, or a 1% chance at midnight. Or, it could be multiplied by 2, so a 20% chance of contracting a disease by midnight. That's if it the check happens by midnight, y'know? Even if rare, the possibility that your plants might have contracted a disease is undeniably exciting (not to necessarily mean people would be giddy about it, but that it would raise some alarms and rise a little bit of thought). Also, imagine a player who doesn't understand that plant disease is a thing. They start to notice, "Hey, this plant has some spots on it. Cool. Wait, now there's more. And now there's more on this plant. Last week it wasn't like this. What's wrong with my plants? Are they diseased!?" Sometimes it's these moments that make a game magical.

Maybe, but I'm not aiming for popularity!

Upon further reflection, I reconsidered whether I have been showing some arrogance. I speak in an extremely authoritative manner with my suggestions for Vintage Story. I say things like, "Let's add it to the game." "This should be added." "This is justified." I just realized that is likely a culprit to the arrogance critique I have been getting. The idea is, if I am a 0 in terms of being the owner of the game, then I should not being acting like I am a 100 in terms of being the owner of the game. Perhaps this is textbook arrogance. However, I propose it is justified that we all take ownership of Vintage Story. Because in a sense, we are the lifeblood of the game. Without us, Vintage Story would not be what it is. We already do take ownership of Vintage Story. I'm not the only one here. Many of us have been seen saying "This should be added" and "this shouldn't be added", as if we are the owners of the game. And I propose it should be this way. Stand up and take it as your own. Treat it like it's yours. That's what gives the game more life and a stronger community. So have I been arrogant? Maybe, technically, perhaps. But same goes with you, and many others of us. Perhaps in a good way Just a quick thought.

First of all, thank you for respecting the spoilers despite having a history of such disagreement with me. That is highly commendable of you, and I appreciate it. I will note that "rust fungus" is an actual thing, and happens to have its traces of being thematic to the game. If what I'm suggesting is confusing relative to the lore, then of course it could be called blight.

That is certainly a problem! I can find time to figure this out more in depth later, but I'm immediately thinking another possible solution is that some plants can withstand more water. This would require the developers coding a value into each plant (super simple, in principle, but gets more difficult when the game is more complex, especially if code has a poor structure). It could even be as simple as moderately resistant plants and highly resistant plants. This would naturally make certain plants more suitable for certain areas. You could have roughly half of the plants highly water resistant, to where they handle fine in rainy conditions. Or/Also, there can be a modifier variable in soil where the better the soil, the more water is required to risk introducing rust into your crops. With the soil variable, this would naturally solve the issue of rain-intense areas if implemented well. This might sound complicated, but it is technical foundation-work to help ensure a smooth and seamless experience for the player. All the player has to see, is "oh, these carrots are 27% over the preferred water level, that's a 27% chance they will grow rust overnight" (or something like that). "Hey, I notice these onions however can take a lot more water! Onions are easier to grow!".