CastIronFabric

I could be wrong but I think he was implying assertion A (which I already knew) implies assertion B by default and self evident. That is how I read it anyway, they are however very different. Assuming what you say is in fact what he meant by 1980s development cycle I should point out that if we were doing 1980s development cycle none of us would be playing the game right now because its still in development. Furthermore, I have gamed since the 80s and in my personal view games today are FAR better than they ever were. Now most of that (if not all) is because the technology allows for it. However, if it was not for player feedback and early access approach we would all be stuck playing Skyrim and Sims 4 at best. I think he also thinks I was implying that a develper should bend to my will and I was not. I am simply stating assertion B does not imply assertion A by default, so its possible but I am not demanding for things to be done differently. To a casual observer what Malestrom appears to be saying is 'its unacceptable to question the devs plans it in effect holy scripture and its near hearsay to even question it'. I do not really think Malestrom is engaging in Dev idolatry but sometimes it appears as if it is although likely not intentionally and I would not suggest as much, it just sometimes appears as such. However to be super clear, I am not saying Malestrom is doing that, I am saying that sometimes it appears as such to me when looking at it casually.

So Wurm has a very in depth combat system, including a paper doll that shows you where all your injuries are and what type. However, once combat starts its so slow its nearly turn based, you can actually be in combat and watch TV at the same time while also being one of the most complex combat systems in any build/rpg game. Additionally, it almost never happens inside your 'claimed area' because you have guards to handle it for you. The reason I bring this up is, I wonder at what point in 'action' combat (instead of turn based) does an in depth combat system just spike ones cortisol level to a point where it completely unmanageable even more so if you have to fight monsters in your base area all the time. I personally am not interested in any of it, I do not play this game for combat and I am not really interested in ever playing this game for combat. If I was interested in playing combat I likely would play something like ARMA 3 or perhaps 7 days to die. However at least for me the reason I am not playing 7 days to die and I am playing this game is because I can actually make a base that is not basically just some murder pit.

I went straight south, mined through small mountains, pathed around large mountains, used stone slabs for a one wide path but plan to circle back to make it 3. Given I am using Cartwright's Caravan I need no obstructions for 3 wide so I cleared all that out. For mountains I used the Stone Quary Mod, I used the Cartwrights Carts to take everything I needed and made mini bases about once every 1500 blocks. Not a lot too it really, I mean a lot of work but nothing clever in approach.

This road I did not fill with water, however I have built a canal before. Take a bucket and just spam fill water. I think that is literally the only way.

sorry I cant. It was in a video, I would have to find the video, find the location it was in the video. Sorry, I was just speaking generally I do not know the name of the mod.

The one I saw a video on look great. Not only can you select which mods you want you can also select what version of vintage story you want and it does the rest.

well it took me likely 40 hours but I just finished a road that goes 5000 blocks going through several small mountains. I used stone quarry mod and cartwrights caravan to build mini bases.

I have set creatures to passive and turn off temporal stability. I am not traveling 2000+ blocks to find a great spot to then not be able to live there, nope not have any of that. Although I personally would prefer all 'Deep creatures' or higher to be hostile but I take what I can get. I am also not going to be locked in a geographic area because I am surrounded by forest I can not even explore until mid to late game on a map that is 1 million by 1 million, not going to do it.

I will say this about Better Ruins Mods. They have 4 main 'story' locations and I have only seen one of them in all my likely 1000 hour play using the mod. The minor builds they have (which I think there is a total of 600) are about (purely guessing here) about 3000 blocks from each other. Regardless, the game has a total max of 1 million by 1 million blocks so there is that.

it does exactly that and its friggin awesome. I know its not for everyone but its my favorite mod by far. At least check out the videos they created on the mod page, amazing stuff

was there a change in world gen that creates less points of interest or am I not understanding that statement? Regardless, for me Better Ruins really helps. I would not mind see a bit more but its pretty cool running around finding castles and building a road system between them but how feasible that is depends on RNG

In my opinion 3 of the things listed in that post are major changes. I would also suggest 'river and streams' is also a major change regardless of if they got around to doing them or not. Given those major changes, I think is a reasonable to question if its going to be in the next major update. That said, I do not think the developers have mentioned those items again so that leaves me thinking they either shelved the idea and/or got distracted with something they find more interesting at the moment.

I think Better Ruins mod is a must have. However, with that said, the reason I think that is 100% dependent on how I personally like to play the game so I fully agree it might not be for everyone, but I do suggest checking it out, its friggin awesome.

good points. I enjoy games that peruse a level of realistic immersion but not as a hard rule. Having said that, I think the most important part of any game is simply a good cadence between effort, reward and decision tree. That is primary, above all else and is often taken for granted. Is Planet Crafters realistic? not even remotely, yet when I play that game I do have a feeling of awesome cadence and immersion in the world. So is realism really important? or is it game loop cadence. As a side note to one of my foundational rants, the least important aspect of a game is its Lore and dare I say Story. It is the one aspect of the game we spend the least amount of time actually thinking about while playing yet many feel it is the most important, its actually backwards.

I think there is an arbitrary assumption that when a developer creates Lore, that Lore is immutable while game play must work around that immutable foundation. I do not know where this line of thinking comes from but to be fair it is estimated that this game has sold 1 million copies yet the number of people who are actively engaged in the forums is about 5, so there is that. Regardless, when we play Vintage Story do we think about Lore while playing? Do we think about Lore at night before going to sleep after a long play? Is it really the foundation of our excitement about the game? I doubt it. So why is gameplay beholden to Lore and not the other way around during a games development cycle? I want to be super clear because many misunderstand me, it is obvious the decision to put in electricity or not is the developers choice. However, the suggestion the decision to do so must be in accordance with existing Lore is a different subject. The Lore can change.

how about this. If a game developer creates a game with the intention of being mod friendly from the start as a core principle of their game development to the point that they bring it up multiple times during the early development phase AND has more mods by a long shot than most games, then in fact its a game in which the intended way to play is to play with mods. Not 'its ok to play with mods' but rather you are supposed to do that. I do not hold that view but the argument and evidence of that view is pretty logical. anyway, back to regular programming just something to ponder while going for a walk is all

I do no think the hot bar and inventory system is going to work in a way in which the player will be able to have the same level of speed and ease moving things around as they do on a keyboard. Something to think about, I think that alone could kill the entire idea unfortunately. Perhaps I am wrong but the VR experiences I have does not suggest one can move around inventory super fast like we do in game.

1. regarding your comment about 1980s development I do not know what you are referring to if you could please explain it, that would be very nice of you. 2. There is a difference between these two assertions A. The game will not have Steam power B. The game will not have Steam power and that is an decision that we have made that is immutable. I do not know that assertion B was made, I understand assertion A was made but we do not even know the reason for the assertion. I could be because they think they will never have time or maybe it means it would not fit well into the world, they have not explicitly stated it either way as far as I know. EDIT: I have explicitly stated multiple times that I am not advocating that a developer should change its process because of a suggestion from the players, in fact I have gone out of my way to state I see what I am saying and that to be completely different things. EDIT 2: Perhaps this example will make sense. If I say 'I plan to go to the store today' I am saying one of the following could be true A. I change my mind and decide not to B. I do not get around to it C. Someone suggests an idea that I find appealing and decide to do that thing instead or in addition to. What I am NOT saying is--------- D. Someone told me I had to

right but a few things 1. a roadmap is actually not a statement that time stops at a certain date. Its only a reflection of what the game intends to have at the moment, it is not immutable. My statement below addressed your point directly before you even replied. 2. I have zero idea what any of those choices has to do with 1980s style gaming. I started gaming in 1980 specifically, I didnt even become aware of crafting as game mechanic until 2002 which was a Neverwinter Nights mod. I did not even see building in a game outside of the Sims until 2004 which was the beta for Wurm, so I have no idea what you are referring to with that statement 3. I know they have decided to stop making tech beyond Steam. What I was asking putting it another way is, have they explicitly said the game itself is to end at a specific tech time in history AND that they will never under any circumstances change their mind on it. Keep in mind the is-ought fallacy dabbled in with a bit of idolatry of developers, So sayith the developer does NOT mean its immutable, it does NOT mean they cant change their mind. However regardless of that I addressed your reply already in my main statement. also: The reason I said what I said is because there is a difference between these two possible realities 1. 'We plan to stop at Steam Power' (because we really do not want to work that long in the game and we really do not think we would ever get around to it) 2.'We plan to stop at Steam Power' (because we want this game to remain in a specific time frame in human history explictly) I do not know it the reason has been explictly stated to be either 1 or 2.

I think the game would have been better served if they did not put a hard date on end of progress. Not to say they would HAVE to continue to create features past a set age but rather that there is no hard set rule that it could not if they ever changed their mind. I think that would have been a better decision rather than stating something that they see is absolutely positively immutable. I do know if they actually made such an explicit statement or not but I assume they did?

I am not sure how 'I missed something that was right there near my base, I simply missed it every time' = 'bad RNG'

The only scenario I can think of that might cause this issue for a new player is if they had learned how to teleport themselves to the equator and hit a desert that is 2,000 block radius. Highly unlikely this is the case, I think by the time a new player would start doing things like that they already know how to find clay.

To be fair and this is not a dig at you personally, I am fairly sure most people do not struggle for hours finding clay. So what you are requesting would be more of an 'accessibility' feature that likely should not exist for everyone but for those with a vision issue then sure.

well to me its self evidence and was instantly so from the start. We start in Stone age, we go to Steel, developer thinking about Steam. Seems like a natural and obvious progression to keep going if the technical viability exists to do so. Anyway, I have said to much on this subject already.

Everyone, please try to understand the difference between these two statements when I speak. A. 'The game must be as it is because the developer has decided to do it' and B. 'The game is of good design inherently becasue the developer has decided to do it' (is-ought fallacy) Item A is a reasonable assertion, B however is a different conversation completely. Those are two fundamentally different assertions. Also, if you please, when debating about Lore as a mental exercise ask yourself why is it a game developer can change game play but cant change Lore. What rule books exists that says game play is mutable but Lore is not. Where is it written that a game developer might not make the perfect game play but once they put pen to paper for a story its perfect and can not be changed. Where specifically does that line of thinking come from?