CastIronFabric

again 1. NPC dialogue saying 'the storm is coming we have to xzy' is not evidence that the storm should be global not even remotely. 2. a trailer of a person walking in a storm is not remotely evidence that a storm should be global. so I hold the following points given this fact. 1. storms not being global does not affect lore not even remotely suggested. 2. if I person is going to start interpreting the lore as like one does when reading the 3rd translation of the bible and cherry picking and taking out of context and reading into it what they want that just turns into a false excuse to disagree with any idea that is just simply not their own. 3. I fully reject that Lore is anymore immutable that farming mechanics. 4. I fully reject that that there exists evidence that the developers feel the lore as it stands currently is immutable and unchangeable anymore than farming mechanics. 5. I am not having a detailed conversation about my idea, I was using your claim that my idea conflicts with lore as an example of item number 2 on my orginal point that started this entire side conversation. 6. I asked you to give me an example of a suggestion for a change made in this forum that you feel does not conflict with the lore. a specfic example

to be clear I do not mean 'a place that you go that is always active'. It can be a place you go on a randomized timer or scheduled or whatever. I could not disagree with you more that such a parameter is important to a game experience but regardless I was not implying that it had to be static. Regarding NPC dialogues what you offered me was basically as follows :'a storm was coming and we had to xyz' that does NOT imply global even remotely. this of course is me engaging in a debate over lore specifics over a foundation of lore immutable importance that I fundamentally reject in the first place.

it is not clear. In fact, its clear that its NOT clear. The evidence you present that it is clear is logically the same as it would be for a commitment to farming mechanics. Storms do not have to be unavoidable, that too is NOT in the Lore. In fact, storms ARE avoidable already so...

you claimed that my suggestion to make storms a place you go to instead of global breaks lore. 1. It does not 2. cite me an example of a change that has been suggested that you think does not affect lore and as such is ok to discuss

however that is also not true. I made the suggestion that storms be a place you go to rather than something that happens globally. That does not conflict with lore but I was told that such a change is not acceptable because it would conflict with the lore even though it does not. So which changes specifically is acceptable I ask? Now, to be clear, I reject the core principle of the argument that lore is immutable or that its the core of a game but even if I was to not reject it, my example above is in accordance with number 2 on my list.

I do not think you understand what I said. 1. The CORE..the HEART of D&D is the ruleset NOT the stories, NOT the lore. That is evidence by the history of its creation 2. we still remain the problem that everyone is fine with talking about how to change/improve storms except that they are not because storms are related to lore. (perfectly circular logic) 3. everyone is without dispute ok talking about perhaps changing game mechanics not tied to lore, like lets say berries or spears or armour etc. But for some random reason lore and specifically only lore is immutable because 'its what the developers want'? why? again, circular logic 'they want it this way becasue it is this way'. ok..does that logic not apply to farming as well?

but again..that is true for how fishing works, how berries work, how everything works. so many are just defaulting to 'they want the story this way so that is how it should be' but they do not use the exact same logic to any other aspect of the game OTHER than the story even though the reasons for not questioning the story would logically be EXACTLY word for word the same for farming mechanics.

Here is what I think is the core 'block' for many. The special effects of the storm itself is very unique and well done and frankly awesome. However, I think people are confusing that experience with the 'concept of storms' as they put it. When something is visceral like the special effects of storms it can be hard to separate the emotional response to that specific experience to that of the point of having it at all. Mechanisms of the storms themselves, if that makes sense. I might be digging myself a deep hole I will regret but never the less there it is.

I like the idea of classes in some cases, its tricky, sometimes good sometimes bad so what I am about to say is not a 'anti' endorsement of classes but rather something to ponder. Wurm = 100+ skills Minecraft = no skill system. best selling game of all time I am not saying that is a argument for one way or the other but rather evidence on the table that should provide all of our assumptions with a pause. (I mention Wurm specifically because Notch worked on that project before starting minecraft)

The thing is, at some point in the late 90s the video game industry started marking video games as story telling mechanisms and they sold that theology HARD. I mean super hard, they convinced an entire generation that the heart of a video game is the story. Execpt that is not true. The heart of a video game has much more to do with cadence of a feedback loop and a player being able to test their skills (either twitch or intellectual or both). This has been true about games for thousands of years. Story in games have really only existed for 60 years despite the fact that its been possible for thousands of years. In fact, D&D itself was a ruleset FIRST, story telling device AFTER the Chainmail ruleset was already being played by many people. If story telling was the foundation of gaming that history would have been story first, ruleset second but that is not how it worked out. Not to menition the implied idea that most people play Vintage Story or Call of Duty or Minecraft or even Skyrim because of the story is just flat out absurd. I perfer to not be hyperbolic but good god people

complete disagree. D&D is a good example, that ruleset came from table top war gaming and all the details of the rule set was set out long before they ever introduced story telling to it. The foundation of a game is not the story, its the rule set (and the ruleset is NOT the story).

story is not the soul for a game and I would challenge you to provide evidence that it is, I do not agree with that at all whatsoever. That is a belief, not a fact. Also, I do not see any evidence that a developer has a stronger emotional connection to a story in a video game that it does its mechanics. How do we know for sure they are not just as committed or more to a representation of realism in mechanics? we dont and speaking for myself if I was creating a game I would absolutely be more emotionally attached to mechanics of realism then I would a story. Just because the story is the most important aspect to YOU does not mean its also the most important aspect for the developer. I also would challenge you to sit and actually think the following 'do YOU really play the game mostly for the story? is the story itself the most compelling part of the game for you?' or do you just say that to yourself because you think you are supposed to? because if your answer is even 'well maybe not exactly' then how can you be sure it is for the dev?

that logic fallacy because that would mean ALL features in the game are made by an immutable god and there is not point in having a conversation about ANY feature in the game becasue its not up for discussion because its been made by an immutable god. but no..its ONLY Lore where we use that logic...why is that? Its interesting how it appears many people think debating over how spears are implemented or cooking or berries or combat and that is all up for debate and palaver but if its connected to 'lore' specifically then its not. same god created all of it.

The creator of Intel back in the 90s said that if an answer to the question of 'why' is 'because we always have done it that way. Then that is a sign that it needs to change, not because of that specific answer but because that is the first answer given. 'because of the lore' is a version of that. If the only or even the first answer one can come up with is instinctively 'because of the lore' then because of that being the most important default answer its likely that it needs to change. Lore is not written by an immutable god and its not a card that one can play thinking its a sacred answer that should never be questioned.

something to entertain. If most players just avoid storms and if all the top mods for this game are not related to storms and one would be hard pressed to find ANY mod that is related to storms then perhaps the majority of players are actually not interested in storms in any context. I am not saying that IS the case, but I am saying take a evidence based approach then looking at all the top mods actually would be a good indicator of what the majority of players want. If that rambling makes sense.

We have enemies we travel to and by all reasonable measures those are by far better than the storms. see my point? There is a reason people avoid the storms and seek the dungeons. As far as your question goes Here is my input on some different implementation Just because you do not agree with my suggestion of a different implementation does not mean I did not make one of which you responded to directly.

There might be some technical concerns with making it a 'place' to go. Would it be close enough? would it teleport you outside of the existing world into a difference instance and does the minecraft main mechanics support that? I do not know, but one solution to that is to simply make it world wide BUT on your Deed it does not happen. When you look outside you will beyond your deed you will see the monsters and the monsters will not attack you while you are on your deed but if you step outside of your deed then the effects start and they will fight you. That might be one solution. That all said, I do not even like the core idea of the storms regardless of how they would be implemented so I would likely turn it off even with that mechanic. I think when it comes to specifically storms people should set aside Lore concerns for a second and think that maybe the very concept of storms themselves really are not as appropriate to a building game as they assume. It just feels like people are going down a 'lost cost fallacy' without questioning the core assumptions that the concept itself is awesome. maybe.

What I have never been able to understand is why people think lore is sacred and immutable. That said as far as I am aware making 'storms' be a place you go to, instead of a place that comes to you, would not break the lore. I think the idea of waiting until you are suited up, prepared with your best foods, weapons and armor all ready to rock and roll and set a time aside to go do it, is a lot better than just having it show up in your world regardless of if you are ready or not. If you are not ready, you will just sleep or hide it out, making the entire thing pointless. So I know I repeat myself often but I find that most effective way to make suggestions so here it goes: Make Deeds where monsters do not spawn on your Deed and make storms a portal you go TO instead of it coming to YOU. done. I do not see Vintage Story as a 'tower defense' game like lets say 7 days to die and if they want to have such 'aspects of it', in my view they would need to decide to go all in or not at all.

yup. If this was my game I would do the following: -Progression not hard locked behind a skill system (aka how VS works currently) and stick with that general philosophy -I would add a skill system that makes you better at something the more you do it. It does not lock you out of anything but you become better at it, so maybe your food dishes are better, maybe your axe lasts longer the better you are at using it and the better you are at smithing it, maybe if you are not good at something yet you can fail or break something etc. -I would add items that boosts your abilities even more in certain areas (what I was calling Object Oriented classes) though but I would not make game play dependent on this. I did not realize this but the first two is literally how Wurm works.

Spawns in my base happen all the time because, to be frank, from an aesthetic perspective my home is 'well lit', if you understand my meaning. The problem I have with the architecture of spawning on our 'Deeds' is that it restricts how we can build. I cant have a warm candle lit room, I cant have outdoor work stations without fences and lots of light etc. I understand we need some level of restrictions due to a certain level of creative realism but not a fan of monsters spawning on my 'Deed' at all whatsoever.

well if you want to go down that road (which would strongly divert from how it works now) then I would suggest the model of Wurm. In Wurm you can skill up in any direction you want or all directions if you like, there really is not any 'classes' at all. There are however more than 100 skills you can increase by doing and you can increase your skill in all of them, or just some of them depending on your desire. To be fair, Wurm skill progression points are extremely slow but that can be easily adjusted with a json file to be frank so that part is really not an architectural defect. What I like about OOC over this model is that one can never be all things all the time. That said, I personally am conflicted with skill based lock systems verses soft lock 'Object Oriented Progression System' which is what Vintage Story is. I like both but when it comes to skill point progression I really really do not like hard locks and abilities you select from a tree of choices (like Xskill) and I really do not like how 7 days to die does it where killing zombies can increase your cooking skill if you put your perk points there. I am having none of that.

My home has what I consider to be amazing lighting via candles, its warm and dark but not so dark that I can not see. As such I always get monster spawns. I have hostiles off so its nothing more than similar to smacking flies who got in the house. Also, I would like to make a Kitchen or Forge outside if I like and without putting fences and lights all over the place. I really think the solution to this problem is simply to adopt a 'go to the risk' philosophy instead of the risk coming to you. Property Deeds should not have monster spawns, go fight them in the dungeons instead if one is into that kinda thing.

I would advocate Object Oriented Classes over changing it via console command as a game ruleset. Not to mention the OOC approach adds a lot of interesting possibilities where doing something similar using console commands would not have the same experience. To put a deeper dive into what I am talking about let me use an example: Lets say your in multiplayer and you crew is planning to go to the RA (or future dungeons) you want to go with them but you are a Cook. Well with OOC you can put your chef suit down, and pick up your whatever shoes or chain or whatever to be a fighter so that you can then join them. This also gives people who want to make clothing more things to make.

Object Oriented Classes. What you wear or carry will represent the 'class' that you are and all its restrictions and benefits. This way one is not restricted for 200+ hours of game play as one class type. If one enjoys the class picked, then fine one can be that 'class' for the full 200+ hours. However if one ends up not enjoying a class then they should not be restricted from changing if it they like, we have to keep in mind, this is a game not a punishment simulator.

What if we just made 'storms' a place you go to instead of it landing everywhere including your base? What if we had deeds like Wurm so that monsters and storms do not happen on your property. Is that a bad idea? speaking personally I have no desire for storms in any incarnation so I will keep it off however it does seem to me that making it a place you go to instead of randomly coming to you makes more sense from a play enjoyment perspective.