Jump to content

Erik

Very Important Vintarian
  • Content Count

    132
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    18

Erik last won the day on April 10

Erik had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

32 Excellent

About Erik

  • Rank
    Bronze Caster

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Some people (*cough* Tyron *cough*) expressed a distaste for a stamina system for combat, so I'll try to explain, why a stamina system is important: Spam. When there is no restriction or drawback for an action and that action is very useful, then players will use it. And don't stop using it. They will do it all the time. Minecraft had and still to some degree has this problem: Combat was sprint-jumping around and triggering the left mouse button to no end. It made for a really unimmersive and chaotic experience. How did Mojang try to fix this? A timer on the attack. Severely limiting the players freedom. And sprint-jumping all over the place is still a thing. Minecraft isn't the only example of this problem: Mount and Blade also has a similar problem. Melee combat in M&B is a large bit more complex than in Minecraft. The player can attack in four directions and block in four directions. Blocks only count if they mirror the direction of the attack. Attacks also aren't instant and can be cancled. And then there are some things like different damage types, stunning and chambers. Sounds like it would make for a great combat system and it sort of does, to a point. The problem arises from canceling attacks, which is often used to make the opponent block in a wrong direction. This attack canceling to outplay the opponent is called fainting. However, the player can faint attacks at any time and players make use of this at any time. The combat is less about timing/reflexes and much more about confusing the enemy. Fainting and attacks are spammed at a really fast rate and the readability of combat suffers a lot. It also looks very stupid. However, it's the most effective way to play. To fix this, one could either put a timer on feints, however this isn't really a good idea as seen in Minecraft, limiting player freedom too much. A stamina cost however could be very finely tuned (even weapon-specific), making feints have a drawback, while also not limiting the player from using them. Stamina could also help fix the other problem of Minecraft combat: sprint-jumping. Having stamina cost to sprinting and jumping can help making these actions the retreat option they're supposed to be. When discussing stamina, we also have to discuss the punishment for low or zero stamina. The player still has to have some options for combat, or it would be like killing the player when stamina reaches zero. So basic actions like attacking and blocking should still be possible. I like to think of stamina as the evasive/defensive capability of the player. The only action that I think needs to be disabled would be sprinting, as it would be a way to effective way of evading and retreating, possibly restoring stamina. The other actions, especially the defensive actions, need to be heavily impacted: Blocking should be highly ineffective, perhaps only blocking half the damage and causing stagger. Attacking also needs to be slightly nerfed or going hyper-aggressive would be too effective when at zero stamina. Probably something like slower swing speed or lower damage would do. The point is, at low stamina you should be at a massive disadvantage, but not without options.
  2. This is a critique on the armor/defense and weapon/attack types system, in hopes it doesn't get added to VS and current implementations (arrows) get removed in the future. While the rock-paper-scissors system of armor and weapon types (cutting-blunt-piercing) is easy to implement and is easy to balance, it does massively limits in player freedom: Players with a wrong weapon or armor type are at a massive disadvantage, making the combat much less skill based, but luck based instead. To counter this, players will need to carry multiple weapons, of which they will only be effectively able to use one against a certain enemy, because the others are at a massive disadvantage. By choosing your armor, you can effectively dictate which weapon the opponent has to use and so does your opponent for you. This is obviously not a good thing, because your weapon is arguably the item with the most gameplay impact in combat and dictates the way to play. Instead of having weapon types, a more classical approach with weapons having different armor penetration values would be better. Sure, heavy armor is still best countered by a weapon with high armor penetration, but there are significantly more options for the player, because there would be a very broad range of weapons with different armor penetration values, not all weapons being specialized. A warhammer would be specialized against heavy armor and a dagger against armorless opponents, but swords and most other weapons would sit in-between, being effective in any scenario. Furthermore, the armor and weapon types system isn't very transparent for players, the tooltips would need to provide a lot of information which can help confuse the player. Judging the weakness of enemy armor is also somewhat hard, how can the player see that the armor is ineffective against piercing damage? Only having one armor penetration value on the weapon makes the system much easier to understand and players should easily be able to see the difference between heavy armor and light armor. In short, I think armors and weapons should have only a very loose dependence on each other. Weapons should be balanced against other weapons and armors against other armors, as that broadens the possibility for more combat gameplay and gives the player more freedom.
  3. Erik

    Future updates

    These are possible future updates. Freedom of Choice update: Micromanagement Gone update: Test of Time update: Mendelian inheritance update: Riders of Rohan update: Gold Rush update: World of Wolves update: Smithing rework update: Forging of the Rings update: Unlimited Power update: Steel age update (Dependency: Unlimited Power update): Valyrian steel update (Dependency: Smithing rework update, Forging of the Rings update, Steel age update): High ground update (Dependency: Unlimited Power update): Clockwork brain update (Dependency: Unlimited Power update): Worldgen Part 2: Give us oceans! update: Deep waters update (Dependency: Worldgen Part 2: Give us oceans! update): MS Untergang update (Dependency: Worldgen Part 2: Give us oceans! update): Finally Connected update: Combat Phase I update: Armor update (Dependency: Combat Phase I update): Combat Phase II update (Dependency: Combat Phase I update): Revenge of the Enemies update (Dependency: Combat Phase I update): Combat Phase III update (Dependency: Combat Phase II update): The Winds of Winter update: Living world update (Dependency: The Winds of Winter update): Breathing world update (Dependency: The Winds of Winter update): Winter is Coming update (Dependency: The Winds of Winter update): Environmental Hazards update (Dependency: The Winds of Winter update): Living Underground update: Beer n Barrels update (Dependency: Winter is Coming update): A Fine Taste update (Dependency: Beer n Barrels update): Effective food update (Dependency: A Fine Taste update): Secrets of the Alchemist update: Fancy Tree update:
  4. I feel like the whole document could use a rewrite, but I sadly don't have the time or motivation to do that anytime soon, but I've recently been thinking about combat a bit more and got some new ideas: While I still think the system I outlined is good, I think it has a major problem: The skill ceiling may be a bit too low and there isn't much room for player expression, i.e. different combat styles. This may make the system very repetitive in the long run and the low skill ceiling may cause duels to take forever, because blocking may be to easy. To fix this, I'd split the attack (and power attack) into four directional attacks, based on the last movement direction at the time of pressing (releasing for power attacks) the attack button. So attacking while moving right will cause a swing which comes from the right, attacking while moving back causes a stab attack, forward an overhead swing. The attacks could be slightly different in damage output, reach, speed and the hit detection cone, but not in armor penetration, so spamming only one type of attack wouldn't be promoted. Power attacks would be "winding up" the animation, holding the weapon in the start position of the attack animation, which would be fired, when the player would release the attack button. If the player moves in this "wind up"-phase, the position the player holds the weapon would change accordingly. Having only four very distinct animations for attacking makes the type of attack very readable, which is required for the next addition: Chambering. Chambering is a new defensive AND offensive option at the same time. It's hard to pull of, but very rewarding. It's a attack that also acts as a parry and only costs the stamina cost of the attack. To use this new action, the player needs to mirror the attack of the enemy, starting his attack just before the enemies attack hits. Then it will block the hit and continue with the attack. Power attacks should also be able to be chambered by normal attacks and vise versa. So it involves reflexes and selecting the right attack. To make counter-chambering, i.e. chambering the attack that just chambered your own attack, a bit harder, an attack changes its direction after chambering, according to the players movement at the moment the player chambers the enemy attack. Cambering is obviously something that only skilled players can utilize, but I feel this one action and the new attacks significantly increases player freedom and combat depth, without making combat controls any harder and essentially letting player still play the way they want. The concept of chambering is actually taken from the fighting game Mordhau and was changed to fit my combat suggestion.
  5. This suggestion is largely inspired by the Minefantasy 2 mod. Combination crafting: This suggestion is largely based around crafting stations and at some point the player needs to craft his first crafting station. This is where combination crafting comes in. The concept is pretty simple: Shapeless crafting in a crafting grid with two input and on output slot. The crafting grid can be found in the inventory. This very simple crafting method is only used for very simple things at the beginning of the game like: Combining tool heads with sticks to make a tool. Creating your first crafting station. This is literally all its needed for and it should be only useful in the first days of gameplay. The crafting stations: All crafting stations function the same way, the only difference is the recipes they allow. When clicking at the side of any crafting station, the GUI of that crafting station is opened. The GUI of each crafting station contains: Nine slots of storage, which are the input and output A recipe/output selector (like terraria or subnautica) A side configuration widget (explained further down) When a recipe has been selected and the ingredients have been put into the storage slots, the player needs to start crafting. When looking at the top of the crafting station, a progress bar and icon for the required tool: When the wrong tool is selected, the icon will turn red. Right clicking will fill a bit of the progress bar. Holding right click will count as one click, spamming right click will not move the bar, but cause it to blink red. The player should wait a bit after each right click and clicking in a specific rhythm will yield the best results. The time between the clicks is dependent on the tool and tool tier, a hammer is faster than a saw and a steel saw is faster than a copper saw. An empty hand is also a tool. More complex recipes may require use of multiple tools. When enough progress with one tools has been made, the icon switches to another tool. Examples: For crafting a table, the player may saw five times and hit with a hammer twice. For crafting a clock, the player may use his hand two times, wrench two times, hammer one time, wrench five times and use his hand once. This interactivity makes crafting take some time and feel like crafting and it also makes automation much more interesting, especially for complex recipes. The crafted product usually goes into the storage of the crafting bench and when that is full, it will go into the players inventory and when that is full, it will drop onto the ground. The side configuration widget or: Where did my firewood go? If a player places a chest next to a crafting station, the crafting station will automatically draw ingredients from it. This solves a lot of storage problems and is a huge quantity of life feature. But what about the output? This is where the side configuration widget comes in, it lets the player configure, which of the three sides are inputs to draw ingredients from or outputs to put the items or both or none. If the output can be stacked in the world, like firewood, it can also be output on an empty block to form and extend such a stack. The front side of a crafting can't be configured an will not interact with inventories, because it needs to be a point of reference for configuring the other sides and a way to select a recipe. The feature closely resembles the machine configuration of the Thermal Expansion mod: Progression: Having different crafting stations also allows for gating the progression and mods being introduced into the progression by their own crafting stations. I image the vanilla progression with crafting stations to be somewhat like this: Flint tool using knapping and combination crafting Chopping station by combining an axe with a wood block Firewood by chopping wood using the axe on the chopping station Pottery and basic copper tools Copper nains and wood used to create a carpentry station on the chopping station Carpentry station for cutting wood with a saw and most other crafting Stone working station for working with stone Engineering station for mechanical power and automation
  6. Erik

    Perks

    I generally like this idea, especially when perk unlock requirements are designed to take the place of achievements. Some suggestions I have would be to also provide a list of all un-unlocked perks in the perk menu, listing their unlock requirement and maybe effect. This removes the need of players looking at a wiki page and make perks capable of being achievements. Furthermore, perks should be able to require multiple perk slots to be equipped, which allows to have perks with different power levels. Also, the activation requirement should be renamed to activation condition, as I first thought it would be some thing the player has to do to unlock the (passive/always active) effect of the perk, like a second unlock requirement. I also don't like the idea of a timer for equipping perks, I would rather only be able to equip/swap (maybe a limited number of) perks at a certain time and/or location. It would probably be best to allow players to equip perks instantly at any time, but make unequipping/swapping perks require special conditions, like only being able to unequip/swap perks at full moon.
  7. Some first impressions on this mod: First of, the amount of effort and work put into this mod is simply amazing, I feel like that needs to be mentioned, as I know from personal experiences, that making mods is very work intensive. What this mod does really good: Predators sleeping is something that is very cool and makes the game more fun, as wolves won't constantly attack you. It seems a little bugged at times (when the sleeping wolf attacks you and is always looking towards you) Dead animals are beautifully realized, with realistic skinning processes. Problems with this mod: The mod is not really intuitive and lacks documentation. There are a lot of things the player can knap right away, but most of this things are useless at the beginning and overwhelmed me a bit. I figured out quickly that the hand tools are supposed to be your first tools, however I haven't yet discovered how to create the materials for the rope that is required for the stone tools. The changes to wood (different log sizes) make inventory management really painful. VS's inventory is just not build for this type of stuff. There is a lot of "microcrafting" involved, i.e. crafting steps just to make things only used in other crafting steps, which can get a bit annoying and does cause more inventory problems. There are a lot of oddly specific wooden blocks for creating rooftops. While it enables making good looking roofs, it is not user friendly at all. How problems could be fixed: A simple solution for making the progression more streamlined, would be to remove stone tool heads and use the hand-versions in the crafting recipes instead. Or there could be only one "stone hand tool" which is used as an axe, knife and hammer at the same time (which is also somewhat realistic). More tooltips on things and documentation on this forum topic. Just stick with the normal wood logs, or at least allow players to turn the thinner variants into firewood. Maybe a bigger starting inventory or a weight based inventory (which sadly wouldn't be easy to implement). Less crafting steps. Fixing the rooftops isn't easy, it would probably require dynamic model selection or something in the line of the Carpenter's Blocks mod. Anyhow, these are just my subjective first impressions on the mod, feel free to ignore them if they don't fit your vision, this is your mod.
  8. We both want the same thing, crushing ores being a process the player does in Vintage Story, we just want to archive it in different ways. I just don't want crushing to be a useless pain the player has to go through without reason, just to make the crafting chain longer and metal tools more difficult to get. I want to make crushing ores logical, not on a realism perspective, but on a gameplay perspective: When not crushing you ores gives you less metal, then there is a gameplay incentive to crush ores. And because players would be worse of not crushing ores, when they finally have build a metal hammer, they will crush ores, because it will give them huge benefits. And because they couldn't crush ores before they had a metal hammer, they know what it means not to crush ores, how much ore they "wasted". Crushing ores therefore, while being optional, can be used as a soft requirement, with higher tier stuff requiring more metal. The mechanical hammer would still be very relevant, as it makes the progress of crushing ores faster, more efficient and not eating your hammers durability, while also being able to be automated. This alone is inventive enough to make the mechanical hammer very viable for most players, but it can be further enhanced: Some ores may only be crush-able by the mechanical hammer, for example iron. The mechanical hammer could even be required for processing some things, like geodes, which could make it a required part of the tech tree later on. To clean up one last thing: Crushing wouldn't cause a higher ore output, but not crushing would cause a lower ore output. It's just a change of wording, meaning the same thing as "crushing causes higher ore output", but maybe it helps this discussion. The ore output is of course only relative and not further discussed in any of my posts. I fell like I repeated myself a lot in the last few posts and that probably means that this discussion isn't really going anywhere, without some outside opinions.
  9. Do not forget steam engines. While they were invented much later than the other methods you mention, they were often used to provide mechanical and only much later to generate electricity.
  10. There isn't a definitive line. My point is just to design interesting gameplay and not depictions of the real world. Could butchering be an interesting piece of gameplay? Hell yeah! There are many interesting things that butchering could enable gameplay wise and it will add a lot of immersion. Why smelting? Maybe to gate the player to do pottery and charcoal? Maybe because the game would be boring and pointless without smelting? True, but we can make the player feel like it isn't required, but his decision, because it is fun and/or rewarding. And that is why we shouldn't design gameplay to be realistic and hardcore, but to be fun and rewarding (that doesn't mean hardcore and realistic can't be fun, just that it isn't always).
  11. The reward should be doubled ore output, which makes the optional effort really worth it and makes crushing ores something that players want to do and not something they are forced to do. For this to apply, ore crushing needs to be optional. Well, ore crushing is a case of metal progression and the main question is, if it should be optional. Most suggestions on this thread seem to be designed to be realistic, not to provide rewarding, and easy to understand, streamlined and most notably fun gameplay. "Hardcore" does not translate into "better".
  12. We may have very different opinions on how to do meaningful, rewarding progression: If I understand correctly, you seem to want a "wide progression", where most of the mechanics of the game are available at the start (i.e. stone age) in some way or form, with all mechanics being effectively required to progress. The later stages of the game just "upgrade" these mechanics and make them faster or more efficient. My way of doing progression would be more akin to an inverted pyramid, starting with very few mechanics and adding new mechanics with each stage of progression, with "upgrades" being very rare and many mechanics being introduced as optional first to become required later in the progression. Both ways of doing progression have their advantages and disadvantages and further discussion of this would probably be fit better on another thread. I was just referring to my previous post about post about ore crushing being optional at first, then requiring a mechanical hammer for higher tier ores and then being required for highest tier ores. Sorry for the confusing term. This is realism, not gameplay oriented. I get that people used water powered hammers and horse powered mills, but that doesn't mean they should be in the game. We will have a mechanical power network with hopefully interesting design problems and that network should be put to use, as it would be the most mechanically interesting (balancing torque and speed) and easiest way to add a mechanical hammer to the game, with multiple options of powering it. The act of crushing ores should imo be rewarding, even with a hammer and not something boring or even annoying just to make using the powered crusher feel more rewarding.
  13. I meant gameplay reasons, how it would benefit gameplay, not realism. While stone hammers did exist, they aren't very useful or safe for crushing ores and they would also go against the staged progression I outlined, making crushing ores less rewarding.
  14. Extra durability compared to what? Sure, making things harder also makes them more rewarding, but rewards are measured in relations. Only when there is a way to get fewer rewards, the rewards will truly feel more rewarding. When the player things it was his decision that have him better rewards, the rewards will feel even more rewarding.
  15. Why should there be a large number of hammery machines? It doesn't exactly have to be that animal mill, just some form of animal mill (just for energy generation, not for milling). Progression should come in small steps, not all at once. The player can only craft a hammer when he has metal, so it is essentially needed to skip the crushing on the first batch of ore. The ability to get more out of ore is something very desirable, so most players will make use of it when they have ore, it will feel like they archived something, because they progressed. When the player would need to crush the ores in the first place with some stone hammer, it wouldn't be a rewarding progression step, the player wouldn't get more ore for his work, because there is no way to get less ore. What remains is doing a lot of things to archive a simple task. This can overwhelm or confuse some players, because they wonder why they can't smelt their ores, which is bad.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.