Rudometkin

I will reply more in depth when I get a chance, but I love the good questions and challenges coming in. Diatamecous Earth is said to be a minor solution in managing moisture levels in soil by improving drainage, and it can come from crushed seashells. So I agree it is not a perfect solution. It is a solution that is logically exaggerated for gameplay purposes, similar to countless other gameplay solutions and mechanics that are currently in possibly nearly every game available. I am willing to explore more solutions.

I think this was the random comedic relief we needed. EDIT: I just remembered my profile picture is of Redbeard from the original Scooby Doo series (because I crack up every time I look at it, the expression is hilarious), and Moltrey was making a reference of it. LOL!

Or, it comes across as direct and thoughtful. How do you know this? The moderator said the other thread was locked for passive-agressive discussion. Perhaps that was a reference to the tones of others. But of course you are pinning it on me without providing basis. Maybe it was locked because of you. I wouldn't know. Plus, staff determined it should be locked. That in itself does not mean it was the healthiest choice for the community. Therefore, even if it was locked because of me, doesn't mean I wasn't doing anything unhealthy for the community. Or, it is the beginning of working together. This is a challenge-based game. The sooner we all can accept that, the sooner we can all work together in harmony with discussing the game. Tyron established it in the game description. Even if Tyron came on here and simply said, "This is not a challenge-based game', we would all have the responsibility of respectfully disagreeing with him. Because it is established in the game description (Of course I don't think he would come here and say that, he's the one that made it challenging!) Words have meanings. Truth and accuracy matters. If they don't like uncompromising wilderness survival, then this game is not for them. I have been discussing ideas in a healthy, thoughtful, direct, and relevant manner. There are people here who are willing to agree with me on that. How do you define constructive discussion? LOL. My own 'talk' is that I'm "bad about being abrasive". So I guess you would say I'm already walking it, if I'm being abrasive, right? Also, sometimes abrasive is necessary, and therefore healthy. What a silly 'gotcha' 'comeback' that fell flat.

Precisely, and I agree with you. Fortunately, I for one haven't noticed anyone here try to make Vintage Story 'nothing but a grind'. However, since I am becoming known for defending the challenge of Vintage Story, it is natural for others to fallaciously label me as "trying to make the game nothing but grind", which is not my position at all.

I'm reformatting this from one of my other posts, to make it a post of its own in the discussion forum. Lately, I have been getting heat from suggesting several challenge-based content ideas for Vintage Story. Some members of the community are raising a common fallacy of generalization as an objection: "Majority of people don't want more challenge, so your challenging suggestions are merely suitable for mods!". Questioning and managing difficulty is one thing. Having the general outspoken community rejecting ideas in favor of ease is another. This is a bizarre objection, considering Vintage Story does not put its general focus on the concept of 'ease', but literally the opposite. So then why are people who are bragged about as "having experience in the game" doing it? It therefore turns out my challenge-based suggestions fit appropriately in that regard, regardless of the general community opinion. We are always subject to see a majority of people prefer 'easier'. It's mainstream, it's the path of least resistance. But Vintage Story players are not necessarily in that group, and Vintage Story is not intended to cater to that mainstream path of least resistance. Seconds before I bought (4 copies of) this game, I saw what Tyron wanted me to see. Clearly several people in this community still haven't prepared themselves like Tyron told them to. The opening quote: This implies if you "do the hard things", your life will get easier in Vintage Story, and that "doing the hard things" is what the new player is intended to start with. The description of Vintage Story that Tyron wants everyone to see is clear. It screams, "This is going to be a challenge, that you must overcome, if you want it to get a remote sense of ease". ---------- The Learning Curve Objection: There is also a common complaint about the learning curve for new players: "Adding challenge will just make it harder for new players, and the learning curve is already steep as it is". As Tyron has established, new players are intended to start with challenge, so adding more challenge is at least "fitting the theme" at worst. Also, adding complexity adds to the learning curve. Adding challenge for a new player does not necessarily add to the learning curve. The player could learn everything they need to about know about fighting drifters. Then, someone can come by and suggest Vintage Story makes drifters have twice the health to make battling them more challenging. In this case, adding challenge for the new player did not make the learning curve more steep. Since, learning whether a drifter has 10 hit-points or 20 hit-points has the same level of complexity. Having to overcome harder challenges is not the same as having to learn more. ---------- Of course people don't like when I bring up the game description to support my position, so they naturally resort to undermining the official game description. But that doesn't work. My position happens to be the winning position here. This is a challenge-centered game. Consider swallowing that pill already. With this anchored into the forums, I want to encourage everyone to work together in a healthy and intellectual manner. We are one family with a shared interest.

Unexplored lore that is already in place is a great reason to be open to changing the suggestion. I agree. As for the, "People demonstrably like easier!" objection: Vintage Story does not put its general focus on 'easier', and neither will I when it comes to my suggestions. We are always bound to see a majority of people prefer 'easier'. It's mainstream, it's the path of least resistance. Seconds before I bought this game, I saw what Tyron wanted me to see. The opening quote: Clearly several people in this community still haven't prepared themselves like Tyron told them to. Of course people don't like when I bring this up, so they resort to undermining the official game description. It doesn't work. My position happens to be the winning position here. This is a challenge-centered game. Swallow that pill already.

Reasonable.

I understand, as I'm in a similar boat! Probably worse off, though, since I'm over 20 hours in, and I think I have almost recently made a copper pickaxe. I'm excited to get established and experience the story. Posts like this generate hype for it.

Alternatively, the inconsistency of rifts affecting crops and not non-edible wildlife could be justified with the logic that it wouldn't matter much to the player whether grass and non-edible wildlife were infected. This is a loose interpretation, a slightly logical answer to the problem, so I want to give it a voice. It does not come without its own problems, however. "Wouldn't matter much" is subjective, so someone could just as easily assert, "Yes it would matter much, as infected grass would lower the overall abundance of grass, therefore mattering to the player". There is also the issue of infected trees. It seems like it could matter a lot whether trees get infected. ----- Wildlife Affected by Rifts: Perhaps an even better solution is to make various 'background' wildlife capable of being infected by rifts, to a much simpler degree than plants. Rust in grass could just have one degree of intoxication: simply intoxicated. Not mildly, not severely, just intoxicated. It does not have to spread. It can just eventually kill the grass, or be cured by the player using fungicide. This would leave 'burn' marks in the grass where rifts were spawned. Trees can be intoxicated, but only the leaves. It does not have to spread. It can just eventually kill the infected leaves, or be cured by the player using fungicide. The justification for more in-depth plant intoxication is that players generally have a greater focus on food-producing plants, so the game puts a focus on it as well, in the name of suitability. On the other hand, players generally have less focus on background wildlife such as grass and tree leaves, so the game tones back the focus on those areas, in the name of suitability. Also, plants are weaker than trees, thus more heavily affected. This could explain why a tree trunk does not get infected from a nearby rift. ----- Of course, I encourage detailed discussion. It would be a shame if we simply disregard positive ideas with mere generalizations, such as "would make the game unenjoyable for a lot of people", as if we had the communication levels and processing power of a bunch of cave dwelling drifters. (IDK, I'm assuming drifters aren't geniuses, but I could be wrong about that one)

Thanks. I'm glad we were able to tone it back. You're cool, we just all have some traits we can help each other work on personally, as a community. I just don't want good suggestion threads to be shut down because we're all out here calling each other narcissists and whatnot. You know? The suggestion threads wouldn't deserve that.

Traugdor has a fair point. Why would a rift only infect edible plants, but not trees and grass? For the sake of simplicity and overall coherency, a compromise in the suggestion can be made to solve this. It can be made so nearby rifts no longer infect plants.

Are you exaggerating again? If it is all about me as you insist, then why are sharing your opinion? According to you, it's not about you. Don't be silly. It is not all about me, and I am not a selfish narcissist for wanting natural disasters in an uncompromising wilderness survival game, despite some other people maybe not wanting it. Would a selfish narcissist really have said in the beginning, "this should be a toggle option, because I understand not everyone would like it!" Come on, behave. I understand that people who try mods do not represent the entire community. Do you understand that? Is this more exaggeration? Regardless, I'm fine with that, I'm a simple guy who never went past the 5th grade. But sometimes all it takes is hammering the basics in, and I'm good at that. This is an uncompromising wilderness survival game, so it should have natural disasters. People who don't want natural disasters can have a toggle option to turn it off. No, that is not my entire argument. This must be more exaggeration. If it is fair for you to boil down my argument to that, then perhaps it is fair for me to boil your entire argument down to, "Rudometkin is a narcissist, therefore he is wrong!" Which is an ad hominem, a logical fallacy. Thorfinn, I encourage you to cool down and come back to my messages with a fresh set of eyes whenever you start to demonize me like that. I don't think I lack the consideration you think I do. I think about other people a lot. What you're seeing today is a case where I wasn't willing to drop natural disasters in a uncompromising wilderness survival game for people who might not want it. That's a fair thing for me to do. Is this more of that exaggeration? Do you care what everyone prefers to play? Of course not, we don't even know of everyone. Chill out Thorfinn, you are starting to assert me into submission that I am a narcissist. I will not let you do that. Telling me I only care about me does not make me stop caring for others. Do I need to stop engaging with you just for your sake? It is starting to seem like a natural disaster hits your keyboard whenever we talk, because you are typing some exaggerated stuff.

This is a rudimentary thematic idea I am willing to improve inspired by Vintage Story, real life, and Felix's farming overhaul suggestion. Rust Fungus Plants can obtain a fungus called 'Rust Fungus', or 'Rust' for short. The name is derived from the rust-like appearance it gives to your plants. There are multiple stages of Rust Fungus, ranging from mild, to moderate, to severe, indicated by the amount of rust seen on the plant. If left untreated, a plant with mild rust intoxication is bound to eventually regress to a severe level of rust intoxication. For extra immersion, a plant's rust status could be optionally hidden from the plant overlay, encouraging the avid farmers to regularly inspect their plants up close to determine plant health for themselves based on visual cues. ----- Causes: Rust can occur from overly watered plants, poor soil quality, nearby infected plants, or when a rift comes into close proximity with a plant. Overwatering Plants: Watering your plants too much can cause rust to creep into your plant. When plants are intoxicated with rust from overwatering, it always begins at the mild intoxication level. Poor Soil: Lower quality soils have higher chances of producing rust in plants. High quality soil has no chance of producing rust. When plants are intoxicated with rust from lower quality soils, it always begins at the mild intoxication level. Transmitted disease: To simulate multiple different strands of rust, rust can only be transmitted between plants of the same kind. A rusty carrot plant is not going to affect a nearby onion plant, but it is bound to infect another carrot plant that happens to be healthy and within close proximity. When plants are intoxicated with rust from nearby plants, it may begin at a mild level or a moderate level, depending on the intoxication level of the plant that is spreading the rust. If the plant spreading the rust is severely intoxicated, the rust may spread at a moderate level to the next plant. Intoxication from rifts: Plants that have been in near contact with a rift will show severe levels of rust intoxication, depending on the proximity. ----- Negative effects: Plants affected by rust fungus produce less harvest, rusty seeds, rusty food, and reduce temporal stability depending on the severity of intoxication and proximity with the player. Rust Contaminated Seeds: Seeds harvested from moderately intoxicated plants will contain trace amounts of rust, which will produce mildly intoxicated plants when planted, which can then be cured by fungicide. Rust Contaminated Food: Food harvested from severely intoxicated plants will contain trace amounts of rust, which will negatively affect temporal stability when consumed. ----- Treatment: Rust can be treatable, curable, and preventable depending on what is used and how early it is caught. Plants with mild intoxication can be cured with fungicide. Plants with moderate intoxication can be treated with fungicide but not cured. When treated with fungicide, moderately intoxicated plants will not regress to severe intoxication as long as the fungicide is still in effect. Plants with severe intoxication are not affected by fungicide. Prevention: Rust can be prevented with certainty by a combination of proper watering techniques, high quality soil, segregated areas with healthy plants, and well-lit farms to repel rifts. Aids: Fungicide and Diatamecous Earth are fundamental aids to keep your plants healthy. Fungicide: Made with oil, lye, and salt. (Lye is made by leaching wood ashes with water). Use fungicide to treat rust intoxicated plants. Diatamecous Earth: Basically ground up seashell. Find seashells in saltwater and grind them up. Lay Diatamecous Earth over your soil as a convenient way to prevent overwatering your crops. Excess water will soak into the aid, instead of your soil. ----- Mildly intoxicated plants: Drops: Seeds, (Minimal) Food. Can be cured with fungicide. - Moderately intoxicated plants: Drops: Rust Contaminated Seeds, (Minimal) Food, Cannot be cured, but can be treated with fungicide to halt further disease. Slightly lowers temporal stability when nearby. - Severely intoxicated plants: Drops: Rust Contaminated Seeds, (Minimal) Rust Contaminated Food. Is not affected by fungicide. Moderately lowers temporal stability when nearby. Can eventually kill the infected plant, leaving nothing behind. ----- Rust Fungus could be rare, or it could be common. I'm leaving some of the chance rates and time-based details open, to keep discussion open for balancing purposes. Farming Rust: This is where I flip the script on you. Severely intoxicated plants also drop rust fungus. Players may intentionally sacrifice crops in order to produce rust farms. Rust farms are extremely dangerous and difficult to manage, because nearby plants that contain moderate to severe rust intoxication reduce temporal stability, and there is a relatively small window where Rust Fungus can be harvested before the plant dies. The intention of a rust farm is to harvest Rust Fungus. Now it is up to you to discuss what Rust (Fungus) could be used for.

Maybe. But it is a fair enough suggestion that it justifies a potential performance hit. I've thought about it, and determined it is a justified suggestion for vanilla gameplay. The pros outweigh the cons. No, it is not all about me. It would not simply be just so Rudometkin doesn't have to wait for an update. We can all risk taking a 'performance hit' for the sake of progressing the development of this uncompromising wilderness survival game. You're not suggesting nothing should be added to the game unless everyone is happy with it, lest the people who don't like it potentially take a performance hit. Are you? Sure, most people aren't accustomed to getting debated against exhaustively. And I'm sure, based on this new information, that you are frustrated because you feel like I'm being unfair (despite my honest, direct, thorough communication). Or, it's like I'm very considerate of how things affect multiple people, and can see and consider what impacts others. That doesn't mean I'm not willing to make sacrifices for the greater good of the game!

Well, this assumes people are happy with waiting and hoping their mod will update whenever Vintage Story updates. Which is not necessarily so. So no, it is not that simple. Nah, it's perfectly suited for a vanilla feature. Considering this game is an uncompromising wilderness survival game.

I'm all for more natural disasters being added into the base game. I think it would be worth it to make a toggle switch in world creation settings, though. Sometimes all it takes is an, "if natural disasters=true" trigger in the code. I understand people would like to experience Vintage Story without the uncertainty of having their based wiped out by a tornado, even if it might be as rare as getting struck by lightning. It fits the vanilla game to a T.

I'm totally for making food spoilage cease in land claim areas and inventory when the land owner is offline. This makes sense, and solves a huge problem. As for dual accounts being used to freeze food spoilage, this could be avoided by making it so food within claimed land spoils while anyone who has permissions on the land logs in. Edit: Perhaps the time bubble idea in general would work excellently. This way, a player wouldn't practically have guaranteed harvest every time they log in.

This still doesn't resonate with me. Regardless of how much time the story takes, it would be odd to say people should answer how their suggestion helps players manage their time, considering their suggestion could be, say, "There should be more colors for clay pots", for example. To be fair, you also said "Unsatisfactory answers should be met with rabble-rousing and pitchforks." I'm trying to avoid getting pitchforked as much as I can.

I think this is a fine idea, except for requiring #4. 4. How does this help players manage their time? Not every good suggestion is meant to help players manage their time, so it is a loaded question. Overall great roadmap for suggestions.

Great suggestion! I back it.

I notice a very common objection here is, "This would be tedious and force the player to spend extra time on something they may not necessarily enjoy" Whereas this doesn't have to be an issue. (No matter how much this is brought up, the exhausting stonewall response still seems to be, "this would be tedious and force the player to spend extra time on something they may not necessarily enjoy", as if the majority here has stopped considering the suggestions in this thread, but continue to reply regardless.) There can be solutions added with the mechanics, and even bonuses. With weeds and diseases, they can be preventable, and higher quality crops can also be introduced if the right amount of extra effort was put into the farm. It can still be possible to ignore the new farming mechanics and still produce a reasonable harvest.

It is evident some of us take an uncompromising, wilderness, survival, sandbox game, and think it should give us zero consequence when we neglect a farm for up to 3 months. On the surface, it is hilarious to see us grasp on and fight for it. In a way, it's a losing battle. With Vintage Story, we are literally told to "Relive the advent of human civilization", and people are fighting against the idea of needing to tend to your crops. Laughable. I think some of us don't appreciate what Vintage Story actually is.

Not necessarily. That is an oversimplification in this context. Because in game design, there is no objective standard in balancing. Suppose you design your own game. Fans love it. Then, you decide to update it with a rebalance. "I think it was too easy, players were flying past cool mechanics that I implemented, so I would like them to spend some time in it, so I'm making it a bit more difficult and complex." Cool. But then, you get that one angry fan, who throws your words back at you: "The game wasn't unbalanced! NOT playing into the system shouldn't impact players negatively in comparison to how the systems worked before your silly update!" You would have the right to say, "I don't care if you don't think the game was unbalanced. I wanted to rebalance it." You would be totally valid in the rebalance, and your rebalance did not mean the game was simply unbalanced, maybe you just wanted to shift the average player experience with a rebalance. You said: I'm over here wondering, what are you going to do when Tyron makes something harder in Vintage Story? Tell him he's not supposed to rebalance his game?

I was just re-reading your point here, as I often study a lot. It turns out, in all fairness, this is you blatantly asserting that any suggestions concerning 'rebalance' are invalid. This is very close-minded. It only allows the possibility for Vintage Story to get only easier in the future. Since, if we made the game more difficult in any degree at any point, we will be breaking your rule of 'impacting players negatively in comparison to how the systems work today'. So it is demonstrably an unbalanced demand you are imposing on us here. Your game design principles need a rebalance.

This is the danger/fallacy of gripping onto an early access game too early that I warned about. You are at the point where you seem to be demanding any changes that are made to Vintage Story be precisely balanced according to the early access game that is in heavy development. Here is the quote, please give the point justice by reading it carefully: "I perceive a phenomenon where people naturally accept the extremely punishing aspects of a game in early access, and they love it. In fact, they squeeze on so tightly that they begin to shame every new idea that is perceived as punishing. They do not want the game to grow in its fundamental progressions anymore. They want it to stay how it is, perhaps with some tweaks and added content. But it was too early. The game is still in early access and needs room to grow and rebalance; not be held down. They begin to hold so tightly to the early access version they fell in love with, that every new idea is compared to the current balance. Instead of being open to the game going through natural rebalances as it grows, they prefer it stay what they fell in love with. Well, I propose that this is highly problematic, and was the downfall of Minecraft as a survival game. Now, expressing concerns as the game grows is good. Using objections such as "Hey, be careful, this steepens the already steep learning curve" and "Hey, this is going to make things a chore" is good. But of course it doesn't mean it shouldn't be added to the game. In my perspective, I finally found a game with a backbone, a strong foundation, that is not so dependent on its potential fanbase. It's an uncompromising game. That is its strong point. And I'm not saying anyone here is doing that, but it is worth mentioning. It is a phenomenon that I perceive, and should be voiced." The game is not finished. Balancing is not necessarily finished. So I am not compelled to worship the current balance system.