Rudometkin

I'm still in the process of catching up, but I wanted to point this out now. Enjen is showing a rare and highly valuable trait. While I also respect a degree of LadyWYT's responses, Enjen openly admits to this suggestion maybe not being for (him?), yet he is still reinforcing solid fairness within the community in a way that resonates deeply with me. There is an idea where the more areas some(thing) can be applied, the more valuable it is. Enjen, you are a valuable member in this community, especially this suggestion forum. I think you are doing a great job at being objective. You even root for a suggestion that doesn't necessarily resonate with you personally. Also, with your comments about how we are one community, should never stop the conversations, never stop the ideas, and how you make an effort to bring people together. I appreciate Enjen here not merely because he happens to side with me on some of this, but because I'm seeing someone who has these great qualities that build up the community and bring unity to it. And frankly he is defending some of my points that seem to be somehow going over some of our heads. That is refreshing to experience. I, on the other hand, am bad about being abrasive. I tend to be direct in my replies like I am chiseling away at a stone wall, to get through. Sometimes I forget about the person behind the computer screen, I think because I am so focused on addressing the content at hand. I am on my own journey of becoming more easily-digestible, polite and well-rounded. The Lord is working on me in that manner. Thorfinn, there is a stark difference between the two apologies. I apologized for something I did. You apologized for something I did. I can honestly say I apologized for something I did. You cannot honestly say you apologized for something you did. You did not apologize for making me feel offended. You apologized for me taking offense. There is a crucial difference. I'm taking ownership and showing you respect, and you are sorry for what I'm doing. As Enjen pointed out: This is not "no difference at all". This really backfired on you. You ought to feel a bit silly for that, and apologize to Enjen for mistakenly insulting his reading comprehension. Then, you should feel really good about yourself, for character development. Not many people can show humbleness like that.

Of course it is. I am suggesting an idea here, and defending it, and also doing my part in reinforcing fairness. But one must question the weight of your words, when you flat out claim that I'm "NOT!" making a suggestion here, when the majority of this thread's content is based on some things I suggested (and supported). I want to take you seriously when I read your messages around this community. But when you come on here saying I'm not here suggesting, that has a tendency of making people question your judgement in general! I did not repeat the phrase, "it's supposed to be uncompromising" again and again in the same way; forever. Ad infinitum: again and again in the same way; forever. Of course you are exaggerating. So, how much of your messages here have been mere exaggeration? Were you exaggerating when you said our suggestion would be tedious? Were you exaggerating when you concluded I do not understand farming in this game? Were you exaggerating when you said I'm "crapping on Vintage Story"? How much of your criticism of our suggestion has been fair? These are your words, not mine. Are you exaggerating? You say I am implying this. But are you just exaggerating here? Thank you. I will say I enjoy discussing these suggestions, and I hope everyone can see this discussion deserves to continue and turn for the better from here on out.

Now you are acting as if there are not multiple posts in this thread. In the one you quoted, I was not demanding. In an earlier one, I was. This seems to be a oversimplified silly trick to make me look like I'm contradicting myself, when in reality I am being coherent and fair about the situation.

I still have posts to catch up on. But this one is a bizarre take. Because I didn't demand Thorfinn to apologize in a certain way in that post you quoted. I was making an observation of what Thorfinn was apologizing for. So, I am happy to reassure you that I was not emotionally abusing Thorfinn by way of demand there. --------- The ironic part is, I did demand (an insistent and peremptory request, made as if by right) Thorfinn to apologize in a certain way earlier. And I do have that right. Because when someone treats a member unfairly in this community, we all have the duty to stand and encourage fairness among each other.

Ah, so you're sorry I took offense. As in, perhaps I shouldn't have taken offense when you slandered me as "crapping on Vintage Story. Instead of, "I'm sorry I baselessly accused you of crapping on Vintage Story". First establish whether I understand the current relevant systems before asking a question contingent on whether I understand them. I know you think I don't understand the current system. I'm confident I understand enough for it to be relevant.

Thank you for this. Also, I just made a more in-depth farming suggestion in a reply to Lady. I could work on it more and post my own thread about it. Unfortunately Lady and Thorfinn are shifting toward attacking the person and not the idea. This does discourage ideas. In debate, this is called an ad hominem. It's an informal logical fallacy. The general idea is, "Rudometkin's idea is invalid, because he is still a novice at Vintage Story". It could be that I'm a novice, but understand enough to know this idea is genius for Vintage Story. What if Tyron himself showed up and agreed that the idea I'm supporting is perfect for Vintage Story? Are they going to all of a sudden support the idea on the basis Tyron must know the game better than them? If your experience in the game is relevant to the validity of your idea, then we should dismiss all of the ideas novices make, and worship all of the ideas Tyron supports. Since he ought to have the most experience, having written the source code. But that's not logical. We should address the idea, and not shoot ideas down just because they are made by people who we think don't understand the relevant functions of the game. Earlier I suggested they could go ahead and dismiss what I said based on me being a novice. I take that back. My support for this idea still stands strong regardless of how inexperienced they think I am.

The uncompromising part about rare lightning death is that it kills you. It has a good balance that way. Lightning death doesn't have to be a rare thing. We could make some superstorms where lightning death is more common. OK. Some people get sick of hashing out in-depth game ideas with others for longer than a forum page. That's ok and I understand it. I do hope to see you around in a less argumentative forum page, friend. Thank you for this. This is the balance we had been needing here. I highly value your post here, it grounds the entire thread out. You gave me more hope that the community here is fair.

I will say this. I have been a fair member of the community. Shown nothing but love for Vintage Story. And now I don't want to be here, because of you. You baselessly writing that I'm "crapping" on Vintage Story, and LadyWYT awarding you for it. You know, if it weren't for my confidence that I can help turn this community around and make it a better place, I would have left after this.

LOL! That wilderness survival world resets all of my progress whenever I die, and it's footage of my first world. Of course it's beating me up and I'm struggling. I didn't know anything when I started, I only have the survival handbook and my own little community of subscribers helping me through it. Also, you are poorly concluding I haven't "tried how the game actually works", even related to farming. I've had nothing but love and enjoyment for the game, even enjoying the challenges that beat me down as I learn, and you can watch 20 hours of it to see for yourself. It is really unfortunate you just asserted I'm "crapping" on Vintage Story, and insinuated I think Tyron a "crappy game designer" because you saw my progress in my first world that I'm enjoying so much. This appears to be an obvious cheap shot. Very dishonest. You should take all of that back and feel very silly about yourself, because that was a very low shot, friend. However, you are free to support your baseless, unfair claims. So, how am I crapping on Vintage Story? Where? Does anyone else here agree that I have been "crapping" on Vintage Story?

So I can see some of you guys don't like how I stood my ground and defended my position. I am thought to be aggressively dismissive, repeating lines ad infinitum, abrasive. Well if those things are true, then it is fair to point out that I am clearly not the only one here being "aggressively dismissive, repeating lines ad infinitum, abrasive". I still need to catch up on some of the later posts. But @Thorfinn, I'm sorry I made you feel threatened when I suggested "my game-design oriented mind", as if I am supposed to be superior to others. I believe my mind happens to be fairly oriented toward game design, and mentioned it as part of support to defend my suggestion (support for Felix's suggestion) that is arguably unfairly under attack. I understand being friends, one family with this shared interest, is better than being enemies. I would rather find common ground with each other than us argue with frustration. I hope you understand that I am not intending to attack you as people, just some of your ideas. With that said, it is good we challenge each other. I appreciate Thorfinn, LadyWYT, and especially Enjen for seeing my point of view fairly. I think I enjoy the community as much as I enjoy the game. Now that I am done giving out virtual lollipops, I want to dive deeper into the discussion where I left off. For the sake of time, I will leave many things unsaid, so that not every word is replied to. So Lady, for vanilla implementation, you are not against all suggestions that inch toward a slightly more challenging experience. You are admittedly fine with making farming take longer. This makes it more difficult to pursue the main story. But when it is suggested it becomes a little more difficult in a different way that adds complexity to farming, you are against it. What is up with that? I don't need you to answer this. Please read on. I also understand that the suggestions are becoming more refined as we go, so it may not be fair to challenge some of your thoughts on the suggestion when the suggestion is evolving - just a quick thought. Weeds and plant diseases finely implemented will not turn Vintage Story into a digital hamster wheel, we are starting to become silly. Vintage story is already a digital hamster wheel that players love running in. Once the wheel gets rolling, it gets easier. I think it likely would not make the game more frustrating for the average player, but instead would make it more rich and fun for the average player. See we are starting to go back to asserting likelihoods without strong basis. As Enjen wisely suggested, let's not underestimate the average player. To me, it starts to look like you are telling on yourself that you don't appreciate intricate game loops like farming in Vintage Story. In your verbiage, you say, "without making it too much of a hassle". When I research 'hassle' in dictionaries, I get descriptions like this: Hassle: An inconvenience caused by difficulties encountered trying to accomplish a task. I figure you either see this more detailed farming experience as an inconvenience, like it is just in your way, or you are imposing this verbiage for the sake of what you think other people might view it as. 1. Weeds. They can sprout up in your farm and negatively affect, or eventually kill plants if left unattended. Grooming your farm is important. 2. Diseases. They can overcome your plants, producing negative effects, even poisoning soil and killing plants if left unattended. Grooming your farm is important. People can view this at least in two extremes. 1. "This is an excellent idea, a wonderful mechanic, it will enrichen the experience of the game." 2. "This is a terrible idea, an utter inconvenience, it will ruin all other aspects of the game." For the first kind of person, they want this in the game. Of course you have been asserting your rather un-based likelihoods that this kind of person is the minority. That is fine, you are entitled to sharing your opinion, as un-based as it may be. But this kind of person could actually be the majority, and this idea could send the game into total popularity, which could lead into the development team getting paid more than they have ever dreamed of. Of course you are comfortable instead shooting it down as a mod on the basis that it 'probably will serve to hurt the game'. For the second kind of person, more positivity is required before you might even get excited about the idea. So lay out the potential positives: 1. Weeds can be managed and prevented. Pulling them, laying mulch, using high quality soil, separating farm soil from wild grass, and pesticides such as a salt or vinegar concoction can help in managing and preventing weeds. 2. Diseases can be cured and prevented. Fungus and Virus. Fungus can grow from overwatering, or poor soil. It can be cured by fungicide: a mixture of oil, lye and salt. (Oil can be olive oil, for example. Lye is made by leaching wood ashes with water). Mosaic virus will cause plant foliage to have a mottled appearance. It can live in poor quality soil and can be contracted through pests, and can spread. It won't kill plants, but will permanently stunt their harvest, and cannot be cured. Get rid of the soil. Fungicide will not affect it. Seeds from a plant with mosaic virus will come out as poor quality. It can be prevented with diatomaceous earth, basically ground up seashells, which will function as a preventative for several months, until it needs to be reapplied. These are technical solutions we can easily come up with on the fly. I just did. So diseases can come in two forms. Fungus and viruses. Fungus can kill plants, but be cured. Viruses cannot kill plants, but cannot be cured. Both can be prevented. A neat little system for the farmer to fall in love with in Vintage Story. In a nutshell, keep your plants watered properly, not too much, not too little, lay mulch, use high quality soil, separate your farmland from wild grass, lay some preventative concoctions that could last several months, (or perhaps longer, if there is desire to implement higher quality pesticides), and you will be preventing all plant death and weeds. You will need access to trees, halite ore, saltwater, and the right technological advancements to have the full scoop. The full scoop can keep a farm in perfect condition for say, roughly up to 3 months. Miss any of these steps, and you're beginning to farm with risks. Implementation of this farming overhaul package could aim for players to roughly harvest 75% of their crops if they totally ignore the new special mechanics, meaning the avid farmers are rewarded with 25% bonus crops for taking special care. Ultimately, harvest for the players who ignore the new special mechanics are receiving some less harvest, as you simply suggested as a quick tweak, already. Is this all fair? So have you been arguing against a generalization, and not the actual suggestion here? Because you suggest a common "end consequence" with "suggestions like this" like this, and I don't remember reading anything from Felix or I mentioning decrepit infrastructures in this suggestion. I may have missed it, though. Well I believe not. What does this have to do with me? I was doing it in the name of adding to the farming profession. I suppose you couldn't tell despite me mentioning it throughout my posts. That's ok. So, many players aren't quitting the game out of frustration. Interesting. Yes, but why do you bring this up, unless you think I am advocating for the game to be difficult 100% of the time, on the basis that it is uncompromising? Once you get all your systems in place, pesticides in order, and so on, taking care of your crops will get easier again. Or, the wiggle room is there because desired mechanics have not yet been finished. This is early access in heavy development. Nice, but I think you are using a fallacy of assuming the community is sufficiently speaking outwardly where you can hear them, and that well-balanced depends on the complaints of players. In technical terms, at least. Well this is the truth. Are you suggesting players who don't like it can't decide? I thought you were the one who brought up players quitting out of frustration. I didn't bring it up. But now it looks like you're starting to frame me as some brute that wants to kick people out Because I have a solid understanding of the concept of time, and that is the key factor you keep bringing up. (But when you say problems, of course it causes problems, small, good, game mechanic problems. Just not the 'problems' that make the suggestion unworthy.) Farms should be more complex. Sometimes you need to be away for a long time. If you want farms to survive while away for a long time, (That is, if you want to manage a farm from 100k blocks away), they should be upgraded to be better equipped for self-sustainability. That is the answer. Giving the player the option for self-sustainability is also what gives me confidence that I don't need to physically leave a farm in order to formulate valid ideas about farming mechanics. It is seeming like some of you are beginning to gatekeep suggestions from people who have not physically undergone specific tasks that are rather irrelevant. A: "Let's make X more complex." B: "No, because Y requires too much time." A: "That's fine, X can be self-sustaining for whatever amount of time is needed." B: "Your suggestion on X is invalid, because you have not experienced Y." A: "No, experiencing Y is irrelevant to making X more complex. As you mentioned, time is the main factor. I have already provided the solution. I have shown that time does not have to be a factor for the player who has earned it." B: "No, your suggestion on X is invalid, because you have not experienced Y." A: "Are you even listening to me?" It almost seems like I am speaking with a person who will not listen No, if you don't know all of the source code, then you are not considering the whole game. "Whole game" has meaning. Words have meanings. Just how can you consider the game as a whole when you don't even know all of the source code, which is the lifeblood of the game? I think you are a bit misunderstood about my proposed changes as a whole. Frankly misunderstood. And I'll show you why. Please consider carefully what I have been proposing. A farming system where players who spend no extra effort farming receive roughly, say 75% - 80% of the produce they are currently harvesting. These are quick numbers. (I have already expressed this general idea before. Maybe you didn't read). So the consequence is not "they have to spend time babysitting the farm when they could be out doing other things they actually enjoy." (remember, 'have to' has meaning). Instead, the consequence is, they get slightly less harvest if they ignore the extra mechanics. People get slightly less harvest if they ignore the extra mechanics. In fact, you are already suggesting slightly less harvest as a vanilla game change. Are these double standards you have? That is an honest and fair question. One might think you are intentionally avoiding this part of my point in order to save face. Also, it's like you are using a slippery slope fallacy. "Your suggestion means the average person will be forced to put up with a bunch of tedious mechanics, babysitting!" Babysitting, what a crafty word to use there, when I already mentioned the average player doesn't have to account for anything extra. --------------- I want to mention, this would be a strong update to farming, in a good direction. But I still like the idea of crops dying occasionally due to factors outside of your control, even for the most experienced farmers. Such as tornados, for example. We are talking about the exciting difference of, "I'm hoping to have a successful harvest this year", to "No, I'm a god. I choose to have a successful harvest this year." All of you ask yourselves, which one sounds more like Vintage Story? Thank you.

@Thorfinn This is the chain you followed: --------- This is a chain of messages with direct quotes in responses. It's a chain. To answer your question, I'm talking to you about it, because frankly you're asking about it as far as I'm concerned, considering the context. I don't think it's fair to say I'm arguing past you. I am actually very direct, some might say refreshingly direct. It's common for logical progression of discussions to get muddled sometimes in a forum. It's fine. Sorry you saw it as me arguing past you. I was being direct while staying relevant.

I propose precisely that we should not be telling others "nobody wants to argue with them" when we can't even know that. I propose we be honest and realistic. Do you disagree?

Sure. But let's not try to pick up bricks using a yardstick, regardless of whether it is the best yardstick we have. Point is, it may be the best tool we have for gauging what people want, but this does not mean we should therefore be pretending to know what everyone wants. Because it is not the tool that gives us the knowledge we are pretending to have.

I think you don't know that. I think you know this, this is why you are reducing it down to being a "decent" indicator, and not an "accurate" indicator. Or, if you just mean 'popular' as in what is 'commonly expressed', then fine, but this still does not solve the issue. Even if polls are taken, the outspoken people could be the same ones who download mods, which could be the minority! There could be a silent majority wanting this farm overhaul. This is my point.

The context of what Facethief doesn't know what people want, is the subject of whether people want to argue with me. Regardless, there is no way to gauge whether the number of downloaded mods is accurate to the desire from the overall community. The number of downloads in a mod could be drastically smaller than the number of people who want the feature added to the game. It is not a 1 for 1. So looking at mod downloads is not evident of what "everybody here wants". In fact, you even accepted early on the notion that I am dead set against using a mod. So even you understand there are people who are dead set against using mods. Why then are you putting so much weight in mod downloads when determining what the community wants? Are you just assuming the amount of people who don't use mods is extremely low, perhaps? It could be extremely high.

I think crop death should be more likely than getting struck by lightning. Adding some curable diseases to crops would be my preferred way to go. Of course this is just my suggestion, located in the suggestion forum. Well that babysit terminology was derived from Lady's post, where (she?) suggested managing your crops would be babysitting them. So I naturally transferred that terminology into managing your torches. If managing your crops is babysitting, then managing your torches is babysitting. And now funnily enough, you happen to equate babysitting with obsessing! I appreciate it. And maybe reconsider chiseling, man! I haven't done it yet, (the first world I'm in doesn't have chiseling - wilderness survival), but I think I'll love it for the customizability. Or, you are not taking the official game description seriously enough, and I am. Of course. I wouldn't expect people to. But this goes without saying, what some call tedium and frustration, others call fun. I was introduced to Vintage Story because I was discussing how torches should burn out in Minecraft. Countless people argued just how ridiculous, tedious, and frustrating that would be for them. Now I'm in a Vintage Story forum, where Vintage Story players are talking about how having to keep your crops alive in an uncompromising wilderness survival game would be frustrating and tedious for them. Torches should sometimes lose their spark in this uncompromising wilderness survival game, I think all of us here can find common ground in that. Where we disagree, is whether plants should also sometimes lose their spark in this uncompromising wilderness survival game. The difference is miniscule looking at it from this angle. It begins to amaze me how this is such a fought against suggestion.

You don't know what everybody here wants and doesn't want. You only know you. It is very cute the level of control you are trying to claim here. In fact, I have been engaged with several times on the matter in the spirit of disagreement, and was just told to make my case, and was asked a question right after. Everyone can even come on here and say no they don't want to argue with me, yet we can see the evidence of what is true, above. So because I know how to reinforce the principles established by the developers of this game in a discussion, I must therefore be suited more for a Minecraft mod than this game. Interesting, thanks for the suggestion. I do appreciate it. I don't appreciate how your attitude towards me, a member of this community fighting for a suggestion for this game, happens to be in this post, where you try to paint me as making (some ridiculous?) stand that nobody wants to really engage with. It's pretty unfair behavior to go around telling people nobody wants to "argue" with them when they are in a discussion that is helping keep this game alive and strong. Coupled with pointing them to a supposedly suitable Minecraft mod, and calling this a "cushy" game in comparison, given the context, effectively encourages them to leave this community as if it is not suited for them. All because they know how to reinforce the principles of Vintage Story in a discussion. It almost seems as if you are the one who might not be suited for this game, seeing as how not even 24 hours ago, you said: Regarding the early game. I encourage you to be more supportive and not try to lead people away from this game in its own forum, as others here have suggested their concerns for this game not having very many players yet as it is. Don't get me wrong, I'd like to be friends. Good day!

The vision, which is precisely an "uncompromising wilderness survival sandbox" game. Presumably stated, or at least accepted, as the official vision by Tyron himself. Unfortunately I can say from experience, root canals today don't have to be bad. I had one or two of them done, and didn't feel a thing the entire time. Modern anesthetics have come a long way, thank God. Well I did make a case, and I supported a case. It's okay if I convince no one. I don't hold the power to change minds. Well for one, you are calling it tedium and frustration, not me. So the other player might not call it that, either. But if someone wants to wind down after work by making works of art, they can play creative for that. Why stress him out with torches burning out and lightning striking his head off, when all he wants to do is wind down by making works of art? Or, to answer the question more simply, and still directly, because it's an uncompromising wilderness survival game.

Of course they can think of pursuing story content from the very beginning even with this farming overhaul idea. Implementing this idea does not necessarily stop people from thinking, planning, and even pursuing as early as they like. It just might be difficult to do it early on. What is the problem with that? It is not like it is not already difficult. In an effort to advocate for more free gameplay in terms of exploring story content, you are discouraging free gameplay in terms of more advanced farming. Yes, the default settings of an early access game in heavy development. But I do not think this idea will hinder people that much to really justify making a big deal such as this out of it on its own. I think tweaking some crops will still allow players to be flexible. We don't want to get into a slippery slope fallacy. E.g. "Weeds can kill crops? Oh no, story content is now impossible for early game. Players are now forced and the game is no longer sandbox." Of course we ought to know the effects are not that extreme. We are not proposing they should always have to be coming back to ruined food stores and decrepit infrastructure. This is a straw man of the position. Of course depending on how long you have left your base will have different effects. Leaving your base for over 2 days will leave you with burned out torches, for example. Yet it would not allow for weeds to kill a healthy farm that you left 2 days ago. Why is nobody complaining about the torches here? For some reason, losing the seed you clicked into the ground seems to be the deal breaker. We hate spontaneous crop death, but we love certain torch death, for some reason. I note you are basing this on likelihood. Likely the player would be frustrated a crop died. I can just as easily propose a player likely would not be frustrated a crop died. It would likely inspire the player to plant more. Likely, the players who would be upset over losing a crop would have left the game long before they got to the point of planting a crop. I propose this opposing outlook since we are asserting likelihoods without solid basis. No I do not contradict myself here. You even admit it falls under a 'somewhat' category, because I did not contradict myself. Suggesting what "you could say", and what I say, can contradict. This does not equal me contradicting myself. If anything, it means I can formulate opposing ideas in my mind and articulate them and reason with them to produce a well thought argument considering both sides. I do understand that sometimes when you think ahead and address arguments from angles not yet brought up by others, it can be seen as contradictory and confusing. Precisely, and the player has an opportunity to prevent crop death by simply not giving crops the chance for life. I could simulate an entire argument in your style about how tedious it might be for players to have to stop and take shelter every time it rains, just because they don't want to risk losing everything on an important story journey thousands of blocks away from home. Is this starting to sound familiar? One would think you would advocate for lightning death to be a mod based on some of your arguments. After all, it is suggested to be a bad idea to force players to stop travel during thunderstorms, especially through common rainfall areas. Are you understanding my point? You speak against punishing players for traveling and spontaneous death, then in the case of lightning, you defend spontaneous death when it is avoidable by not traveling. So you are fine when traveling is prohibited for lightning death, but not when traveling is prohibited for crop death. That is odd to me. I propose lightning death is fine. So is occasional spontaneous crop death. Though I like the idea of curable diseased crop death more. You're right, in fact, lightning death is worse. Oddly you seem to be fine with the harsher one, and harsher on the more mild one. Both are unlikely. Lightning death kills you. Crop death kills a crop. Both kill and both can be avoided. Don't play with the lightning, don't play with the crop. Or play with the lightning, and play with the crop. They are free choices. Or, we can simply make them much less likely to occur. Also, we can create some killable pests and curable diseases to go with the crops. The player having to 'just deal with it' sounds uncompromising. Reminds me of Vintage Story. The lightning told me to "just deal with it" after it struck me dead, when I was gathering resources for my immediate survival. That was fine. So what? Yes this is a great point. If they enjoy something more than saving every last crop, then they can do that instead, at the cost of possibly losing some crops. It's not a lightning strike to the heart. The loop doesn't have to demand much. We also need to be careful about suggesting not making farming any deeper merely on the basis that some people might not enjoy farming very much. Or, maybe it is simply because it takes more time to get them further set up to the desired way. This idea can be implemented without losing vast amounts of flexibility in the long run. Compromises can be made. Well they already need to babysit their torches, until they get some upgrades. So requiring babysitting in itself is not against Vintage Story principles. But I am not suggesting here that to improve farming we need to make players return to a base that is no longer intact. Unless perhaps by no longer intact, you are referring to the consequences of a neglected, underdeveloped farm. I'm beginning to hear a little bit of, "we should be able to experience no downsides for neglecting a farm for long periods of time, because the developers made some really cool reasons to go out and explore." That would sound very simplified, not giving farming mechanics the consideration it deserves. It sounds like a simple farm management issue to me, not a farm mechanic issue. I'd say consider building your farm up to make it as self-sufficient as possible before going on a long trip, if you're going to try farming from 100k blocks away. Or, we are widening gameplay options in other areas. Respectfully other games seem irrelevant to me at this time regarding this issue. Do you feel like this is relevant? If I were to somehow provide statistics on overall positive community feedback on instantaneous crop death in similar games that have similar game loops, for example, would that matter to you here? If so, why? I think I personally take Vintage Story as its own standalone game, on its own terms. I don't feel like other games matter regarding this issue. But maybe they do. Maybe I've seen what happens when a game tries catering too much to people's concerns instead of focusing on making a solid coherent world that the player must learn to live in. I'm glad Vintage Story has a focus on uncompromising wilderness survival. Hey, let's make crops more dynamic, by the way. Throw a little more spice in the farmer profession. Yes. But you are drawing a line where it's at. It can still be a simple enough system with these farming overhaul ideas, to where most players can manage it and have some fun, even if they don't enjoy farming that much, while still leaving them plenty of time to work on other gameplay loops. They might just get 90% of the crops they're getting now. It's the farming professionals who are perhaps retaining that 100%, or more. Because they particularly enjoy it, and are spending the time to maximize their gains in the field. This is how professions work. (Or, the ratio may be more of a 75% - 95%). Yes, and it is great. Plants have problems in order to encourage the player to seek better farming solutions. Same general point can be made for plants and plant upgrades. Similarly, weeds would remain small for several days, and can be removed by just breaking them, so it's possible to keep your starting farm healthy with just pulling weeds until you have a better option. No big problems here. People who don't like the game, yes. Luckily, the game isn't geared to compromise for them. Thank God, and thank the developers. Luckily, Vintage Story is built on solid ground. So the part of the community who wants 'dirt-to-diamond' features can play mods that make the game easier. When this logic is accompanied with "burning out torches is tedious and not fun", Vintage Story is suddenly deemed an unfun game that ought to switch to all torches lasting forever in the next possible update. What do you say to the people who want all torches to last forever? Do you perhaps flip the script and tell them to just 'deal with it'? I would think you probably point them to a mod, on the basis that you think Vintage Story should have the challenging aspect of finite torches, because maybe you learned the game when it already had finite torches. So maybe you accepted it. This is a chain of assumptions on my end, but I think you wouldn't be having an issue with more dynamic farming such as this, if it was already in the game when it was introduced to you. Vintage Story is an uncompromising wilderness survival game. It's okay if crops sometimes spontaneously die. Even worse would be an 'uncompromising wilderness survival game' that compromises. So you are fine with the challenge of having to time your farms appropriately? Surely many people are not fine with this. What do you say to them? Perhaps download a mod? Sure, let's just go ahead and have the farming be more dynamic for everyone then It seems like there might be a phantom problem in some of your messages. Like, if this general overhaul idea were added to the game, then all of a sudden the game would deteriorate into a tedious mess that forces players to play the game in a very narrow way, and would perhaps turn away too many people. I don't want to strawman your position, I want to voice a possibility. I just don't see the concern being justified to bring up so many arguments against making a few crops here and there having some more chances of dying, in an uncompromising wilderness survival game. But I kind of like to see the opposing views, as it makes me think more deeply on the subject. Vision which is, uncompromising wilderness survival. I look through that lense, too. Did I say the players can just "deal with it"? Huh. Where? Anyway, that sounds fitting for an uncompromising wilderness survival game. "Just dealing with" problems is kind of the point at a stripped back, fundamental level. If you want to strip it back that far. Of course the game design goes much further than just having players simply "deal" with problems. I don't expect anyone here to have that simple of a philosophy. Sometimes it can be an appropriate answer, however, I suppose. Regardless, the relevance is in ensuring farms can be upgraded to the point of general long term self-sustainability. This is why I am confident it is not a big problem. Because I am confident these ideas can be implemented in a way where farming can still be upgraded to the point of being mostly safe during long times away. So whether I have experienced long times away from farms for any reason is irrelevant. And that's considering you even want to work with having a farm while you are away. I'm supposing you are suggesting there is or may be story content that is inherently incompatible with complex farming. I don't think so. In my opinion, that is so far off the radar, it would be reasonable to not even worry about it. I am starting to hear a little bit of, "We can't make plants get diseases, because we don't know how that will affect future story content." But I understand maybe you are just speaking in general here. Thank you. It is relatively safe to assume no players here have fully considered the game as a whole. Do you understand how complex that would be? You would need to practically live in the source code. Now if you're speaking generally, then I'll say general thought regarding the game as a whole should be sufficient. I thought about farming mechanics, and the occasional need to leave the main base for long periods of time, and determined with my game-design oriented mind that these farming mechanics can be implemented for the betterment of the game, and I don't need to study how, hanging axes react to nearby fires, for example, in order to be justified in my support for the farming suggestion. General overall consideration is fine, as long as you consider the minimum necessary details, which are relevant details. Yeah, and it is easy to say, "not for the vanilla game". I'm sure we'll be seeing it for the rest of our stays here!

Yes, you say maybe, but it is more certain than maybe. Though it is a valid concern to not want to drag the development cycle for a dynamic crop toggle switch. Let's just make them dynamic without the troublesome toggle switch. No, I have not completed the game yet. Which is largely irrelevant, since there can be longer term quality of life fixes to these mechanics that have already been hinted at and demonstrated. Does that make sense? I am not dead set against using a mod. As I often find myself needing to tell people in various settings, 'perhaps we should establish whether I am dead set against using a mod, before asking why I am dead set against using a mod.' In fact, I plan to make mods. Of course not everyone agrees with my definition of fun. Not everyone disagrees, either. But is that the standard for base game content now? All of a sudden, does everyone need to agree something is 'fun' before it can get added into the base game? Of course not. Now for the sake of defending my position here, since it is only fair I fight for what I think is solid, as you do for yourself, I can use the same terminology method on you that you used on me, to show how it is not exactly a fair and considerate method. That is, why are you so dead set against adding something into the vanilla game just because not everyone agrees it's fun? See, it's quite unfair to ask each other such blunt and loaded questions. It makes us look ignorant against each other. We should work to be considerate Just as you might reply, "I am not dead set against adding things to the vanilla game just because not everyone agrees it's fun", I would reply, "I am not dead set against using a mod." So those questions become unnecessary and irrelevant. ----- In general, I understand the 'dead farm' objection when we get back from traveling to be a 'storm in a teacup'. Yes, it is a problem. But complex farming mechanics should not suffer because someone wants to farm their crops from 100k meters away. There are several possible solutions, such as irrigation systems, and having higher grade soil and farms properly segregated from wild grass, to greatly minimize the existence of weeds, for example. I think some of us might be chalking this idea up as, "too tedious", which is a dangerous argument. That kind of reasoning can eventually lead to the death of Vintage Story principles as we know it. It could be the next thing we know, we have people complaining that torches are burning out, and that "more realistic doesn't equal more fun". The "it's too difficult/tedious/not fun" is a fine concern to voice. But where do you draw the line? If left unchecked, it can be a cancer that takes over the community, to the point developers could receive backlash from a spoiled community just for making a 'negative' rebalance in an update. E.g., if torches just started to burn out in v1.20, people would be calling it tedious and unfun. They would complain that by the time they get back from their long adventures, they don't want to come home to a bunch of burned out torches. Burned out torches should just be a mod. Not everyone thinks it's fun. Do you see how far it can be taken?

I love that I'm getting wolfbaited for reinforcing the game's core values in a thoroughly coherent manner. This entire game is wolfbait to the majority of video game players. As for this seed quality idea: I think this is excellent and should be implemented. Having 3-5 stages of seed quality would give farmers a lot to work toward. Also having a slight chance of a crop producing a lesser quality seed will keep things in balance while still allowing for overall progression.

Are you thinking totally automated? I think to make it less labor intensive, yes, as an upgrade, excellent idea. But to make it totally automated would be to undermine a beautiful mechanic that doesn't need to be undermined so harshly. That would be bad in my book. Perhaps when spinning the clay mold, you only have to form the shape on a vertical axis. This would be different, but overall be a smoother and quicker process if implemented right. This would be an effort to simulate the "simply extend your arms" mechanic. There needs to be discussion on how it could be best implemented without being fully automated.

This is not resonating with me, and that's okay, that's totally fine. The big objection here is "sometimes people have good reason to leave for extended periods of time". This just does not make this enhanced farming idea a deal breaker to me. So people need to wait until perhaps their second year to get food stocked and stored, and maybe not farm so much during the time they're gone. Instead need to perhaps supplement some of their food with some wild foraging and kills along the way. To me this is not the blaring problem it's made to sound like. So story content and big adventures are more suitable for players who have established themselves and don't need to farm for that year. So what? Well, we are talking about crops here, not farm animals. This does lead fine into farm animals, as well. Rare diseases can be a great addition to plants and animals. If you aren't equipped to cure them, they may eventually die. This is a great idea, and I imagine you would somewhat agree on the basis that something could be done. But the fun part about spontaneous crop death is that it is out of our control. I like the idea of plants being diseased better than spontaneous crop death, but I can still defend the idea. To say it objectively does not make for fun gameplay is extreme. Your justification is that the player had no opportunity to prevent the loss. Well, yes they did. They could have avoided the loss by not planting the crop. Similarly, I was recently struck dead by lightning when struggling to establish myself in the world. You could say I had no opportunity to prevent that loss, and that's fine. It was still fun. In that case, lack of loss prevention still led to fun. So lack of loss prevention in crops would not necessarily be unfun. But I did have an opportunity to prevent that loss. I could have stayed out of the rain to begin with. Sometimes when you do something basic, there is some risk. I don't see a problem with this, and I don't see any unjustifiable problem in spontaneous crop death. Even if we were talking as high as 1 out of every 10 crops were going to die of spontaneous crop death, that would be fine for me. Instead of getting frustrated, losing heart, and blaming the game for being terrible, I would accept it, and move on. Keep farming. You're going to lose some. That's the way the world works. Sometimes things die. Don't get too attached to every little thing we try to do. Some seeds aren't going to sprout. This is not the objectively terrible thing that it is made to sound as. This would actually demand more respect for farming. I disagree that even the animal issue would rob you of all of your time to explore. If you are established well, perhaps you could have your animals near water and well stocked with food for a long leave. Perhaps you could have quality soil and sealed off sections to your farm that is not connected to wild grass, so weeds are exponentially rarer. The deeper mechanic here is that you have to manage your crops and livestock in order to take the longer leaves without being so punished. The desired comfort and freedom does not have to be unattainable. If one can see through the surface inconveniences, they can be open to more complex systems such as these. These added mechanics adds a little bit of challenge for the noobs, and makes it deeper and more complex to master for the pros. That is how professions are made. When you have a lot of little variables that make a simple system complex. The pronounced farmer handles these crop issues with detail. The average player (perhaps they are proficient in a different aspect) can still live on farming. They just are not as proficient. Not everyone has a green thumb. That's OK. I think we're somewhat throwing the baby out with the bathwater in some of these objections. Like the game would be all of a sudden terrible and broken if one of the crops you planted didn't survive. We are beginning to sound a bit entitled. I appreciate the great discussions and objections being made here. This is what helps keep the game alive and healthy. There needs to be discussions had on both ends of the extremes. And we can say it would make the game a "punishing chore", but in that case, the torches burning out is also a "punishing chore". So, so what? 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. This is a great system. But many would call it a "chore" and dismiss it on the basis that the game is "not a farming simulator". I'm serious, there are people who make these kinds of arguments!! Sure, but we aren't insisting on making the game add every tedious chore with 100% realism here. I like that you brought it up, because it is a serious thing. But I need to voice that it isn't happening here with this idea. Well people are always able to not get 'so frustrated that they quit'. That is up to the player whether they have no patience to play an uncompromising survival game. Of course, and this can still ring true if this farming overhaul idea is implemented well. However, if we are judging the "proper balance" by the game's current difficulty in its current state, then we have a major problem. Since, the game is still in early access and perhaps is not yet difficult or complex enough in some aspects. For example, I fear we got used to crops living '100% of the time', where we should be willing to accept a 5% decrease in crop life. If that is immediately going to be deemed 'terrible balancing', then I fear we would be too close-minded. Of course we want well balanced. But according to whose standards? I'm glad Vintage Story is uncompromising, so the player has to adapt to the world, not so much the other way around. Of course even someone who has successfully farmed and established their base with long lasting food should lose their hard work when they travel for an extended period. It's called the cost of living. When you travel, you can eat the food that you worked hard for back at home. Of course, your general concern is that people will lose their farms if they leave for an extended period of time. I propose perhaps they shouldn't have farms if they are planning an extended leave. Don't have the food yet, though? Then don't leave yet. We already have the excellent systems of food preservation in effect. This is a non-issue in my mind. With all this said, go ahead and feel free to dismiss everything I said, because I admittedly am still early in the game. In vanilla, we can have toggle switches that is more dynamic than just one implementation. "Dynamic crops" can be a toggle switch that adds many of these features.

That depends on how big your farm is, and I doubt you or I are that lucky. Also, you speak as if early game isn't painful. Pain is not a bad thing. Starting from nothing is difficult. It makes 'being settled' that much better.

I love these ideas for the vanilla game. Weeds: These should have a chance of killing your crop if left fully overgrown. Even if it's just a 5% chance per day. It makes sense, is a real problem in farming, and would enhance the art of farming, since a solution is required. The ones who account for the weeds are the better farmers. Weeds can rob your crops of room to grow and completely smother them, killing them. In general I would have these last several days per growth stage, for the ones that do happen to grow. Increased water retention: I think current water retention is fine, and players can make choppy pond farms if they want. I personally don't see such a need to discourage it in that direct way. Mulching: Mulching is the answer to the weed and water retention problems. This is how choppy pond farms should be discouraged. Spontaneous crop death: This is an excellent idea. Instead of allowing players to be total gods over their crops, we are establishing that they are mere handlers. Players will respect farming more this way. Honestly. And if it's a huge problem to some, then I propose it just be made a toggle option. Everyone can be happy. But let's not disregard it totally down to a mod. That's my take on it, and I love to see all of the opinions. Seeding: The seeding idea to invest in your crops is excellent. However it should probably be applicable to certain crops. As for the noob objection, we addressed that problem in the game description. "Vintage Story is an uncompromising wilderness survival sandbox game." Uncompromising: showing an unwillingness to make concessions to others. Vintage Story shouldn't worry about being too difficult for the sake of noobs. The game is clearly built on a solid foundation with little to no regard for individual inadequacy. I propose that an unwritten motto for VS is 'learn it, or struggle'. But, I like when the issue comes up, because it still should be discussed. There is still a balance. If someone isn't or doesn't want to be the best at farming, they don't have to be. They just won't enjoy all of the same benefits as someone who does specialize in it. Deeper farming mechanics doesn't have to make it nearly impossible for the newbies, but even if it does, then many of them will actually enjoy learning it and love the game more for it. Vintage Story has been running me through the grinder as I learn it, and I love it for its extreme premise. I think it's refreshing and uncommon.