CastIronFabric

1. I am not getting into this. The reason we play a game is for the interaction, skill mastery in using a safe mechanism, not for the story. I have watched enough lectures on the subject of game play to know this is a fact not an opinion. It should be self evident as well. and I have no idea why you think a 'interactive novel' is a game. It does not check any of the requirements anymore than the terrible 'choose your own adventure' novels from the 80s. We have been playing games since the dawn of humanity, story telling in games have only existed for about 50 years. Think about this, when you play online with your friends how much time are you spending talking about the story? when you sit in bed at night thinking about Vintage Story are you thinking about the story? or your next project? When you play alone, how much time do you devote thinking about the story? Log it over the course of 200 hours how much time you are consciously engaged in the actual story or lore. So, why is it more important than the actions you are doing which make up the vast majority of your time. Please do not answer me, I do not want to engage in debate over this. I want to plant that seed and perhaps it will resonate without conversation. 2. I understand the game is not mine, that is why I put into bold the words 'inherently several times. The argument being made is that a game is 'inherently good design because the developer decided to do it. Please try to understand the difference between what you are saying and what I just said. I am NOT saying the argument is that a game needs to be that way because the developer said they will do it but rather that the argument is the 'it is intrinsically a good design because the developer did it.' That is is-ought fallacy 3. A developer (any developer) who changes the game (as this developer has done) is evidence that the game is mutable by the developer. Now I am asking you directly, what rule book exists that states a developer can change game play but CANT change Lore. Make your chase. I doubt I will say anymore on this matter.

Correct. Many people think Lore is the most immutable aspect of a game that it is the center point and everything else revolves around that when it comes to a video game. That is incorrect. Gameplay is the drives seat, the rest of it is background at best. In fact I will go even deeper and say the cadence between task and reward and how each task cycle goes to the next objective is the most important part of game play. EDIT: I also think conflating a 'drifter tuxedo' with 'we can not go beyond Steam because somewhere hidden in some Lore text there is some reference to not going past Middle Ages but because the developer said they are open to making Steam its ok to just dabble a bit into Steam but no way go past that!' is a bit rich to say the least

Similar to your list here is my list on this subject and I think each item on the list below should be delt with separately and unfortunately its easy to accidently conflate them but they should be delt in isolation. 1. There is the question of what does the developer want to do. The developer might not want to move the game pasted 'Medieval Ages' but that does not mean that it is intrinsically a bad design because the developer does not want to do it. That line of thinking is a bit of the is-ought fallacy combined with a bit of idolatry of the developers. I reject this line of thinking completely. Also the spin off on that I reject, that being 'well the developer is not going to do it and as such for that reason its intrinsically a bad idea. 2. The idea that Lore, Backdrop and Story is the only thing in the game that is immutable is a concept I reject on core principles. Why is Lore considered immutable and thus all game play must flex to it? I have no idea, I think its purely arbitrary rule someone at some point in gaming history just randomly made up thinking that a video game story is so amazingly good that its on the level of sacred text, lets get a little more grounded. I think its the other way around, Game play is in the drivers seat here, not Lore when it comes to a compelling video game. 3. Is the idea even feasible technically. I think its easy for all of us to accidently conflate those three separate items and not be able to isolate those three points when it comes to asking if a new features should be in place.

I think the solution for dungeons is the same as it is for traders. I know some do not agree with this but here goes anyway. The loot table. We went into a dungeon and came out effectively with nothing. It would also be nice to be able to use more of the items found. As a side note to traders, in addition to a loot table I would add reputation so that some quality/useful times show up more consistently when you have a good reputation with a trader or trader type. Disclaimer: I am not changing my mind on this opinion, stubborn? perhaps or I just know I am right either way I am not debating it just sharing it. When two of us dedicate some time to go into a dungeon and come out with less than a ruin, one tends to have a solidified opinion on that. (Firewood? not really helpful, 40 or so Firebrick blocks? yes useful)

its common for people to misunderstand me and even repeatedly so on this specific point. I am NOT saying its 'ok to do what you want' I am arguing that is explicitly the intention of the game design itself. huge difference. Also, I think the idea that the game might consider moving into the Steam technology as the developers have suggested is not only self evident to be reasonable I am not even going to entertain the possibly that there is some magical wall that exists where it would be unreasonable to go farther than Steam. So that is immutable. I am not great at debating things that I personally see extreemly obvious. So with that , I am punting from such a debate. later I hope that does not offend anyone.

I plan to try out glue but oddly enough in all my seemingly thousands of hours of watching other people play I do not think I have seen a single person ever try to use glue to recover ruin items. I really think vanilla ruins and vanilla trading could be greatly improved rather easily, I absolutely would be more engaged with both of those if done even slightly differently. .

I see this conversation in two area. 1. Using the logic that a game should only be what the developers envisions (a principle I do not agree with as a side note) and that vision is sacred and immutable then its important to note that from the start this game it was intentionally designed to be modded. I would even argue that the proper way to play this game is to play it as you like. It is one of the most flexible games when it come to settings, mod libraries, override with creative controls etc that I have ever played in my 40+ years of video gaming. 2. I think its perfectly reasonable and frankly rather self evident that there really is not a design principle problem with having the technology move into Steam Power (as the developers have stated they would be open to doing) and even beyond Steam Power and perhaps all the way into the modern era. I do not see that as some kind of novel idea, I think its fairly self evident as a possible idea. I fail to see why anyone would think this some kind of violation of design principles. (disclaimer: this position I am having is separate from the technical questions, the feasibility of long term game play etc I am only addressing the view that the idea itself is somehow fundamentally flawed at face value)

The game starts in the Stone Age and moves into the Steel Age. There is not a reason why a game can not move forward in time beyond the Steel Age. When people suggest a game can not its purely arbitrary rule they have made up. Could Call of Duty WW2 go father than WW2 (which is in the title)? sure why not. Unlike Vintage Story there is a bit of a conflict in the title of the game but there is not some golden rule that it could not. World History does not REQUIRE a book or a TV show to end on specific important dates in history, it can cover as much of the dates as it likes. Now getting into the fallacy which suggests this game can not be good unless its something the developer has explicitly stated then here goes this: The developers have stated they are interested in making the game go into Steam Power, which, was NOT part of the Middle Ages.

At the risk of invoking some to engage in the is-ought fallacy, I would like to mention that when it comes to game play, I find it almost always useless to explore a vanilla ruin unless I have nothing else to do, I find this true for the new dungeons as well as (unrelated) traders. Its a missed opportunity really.

I would start over many times to try and get the best clean early/mid game down solid but now I am thinking: 'If I want to start over, just move far from my main base and bring whatever kick starter gear I want if any at all. I can not suggest installing Better Ruins mod before you open up too much of the map. It used to be a great mod, now its an unbelievably awesome mod

I have not even done the story missions yet. I plan to but its been est. about 1000 hours of game play in VS overall and I still haven't done it. Mainly because I had a bad habit of starting over. Regardless, to your question. If you have not been 20,000 blocks south you absolutely need to, if you have not installed the Better Ruins mod you absolutely need to. I currently have two bases with 3 more in the plans and a road system that I plan to make connecting them all, going all the way 20,000 blocks, there is litearlly a million by a million blocks to explore and it gets intresting going south of spawn

ok fair enough, so to be clear when you say 'crops/agriculture' you are not talking about planting farms but rather what is more commonly referred to as forging (at least I would) but NOT forging berries, at least for the item on the poll Interesting, thanks for clarifying. EDIT: To answer your post question however, I forge but I do not make a distinction between doing so for grains/veggies/berries, I do all, even mushrooms in early game. I save hunting for later but primarily because I am using the Butchery Mod. CORRECTION: I do fishing pretty much as soon as I can be somewhat stable in a location but until then, if I can eat it, I forge it, I do not bother to make the distinction on food source type for the early game when it comes to those choices.

The copy and paste of the title in bold was not meant to really be a intentional yell or scream, just lazy on my part. I am just explaining the context of my question which yes you answered as basically no (meaning its really not a early game source of food) of which I agree. I am just not sure why farming is being listed as one of the options for a early game food source which is why I asked.

I think this context when people say 'early game' what they really mean is 'first possible option' when it come to mechanical power. The iron requirements for both a large windmill and a waterwheel I think would be painful to do without the basic windmill. Just to be clear.

The common understanding I have gotten while playing the game and also watching several online tutorials is that medium fert dirt is not 'good' its essential to the point that if you can not find any anywhere despite several months of looking that this is an extreme outlier not normal. In fact, one tutorial I saw said that crops will not grow in time in low firt dirt at all...full stop. I do not know if that is accurate but I think your game world is an outlier, not a norm. So I think calling it 'good' is an understatement.

fair enough but the title of the thread is as follows below which is why I asked the question specifically Early-game food sources post 1.22

I am curious, can anyone explain how growing crops is an early game food choice? That is a best 9 days, likely longer because of time getting to making a crop and soil type, weather etc.

I want to be clear, the assertion I am addressing is not related to what the developer has stated as their roadmap and the original assertion did not bring that up as a point either (best of my knowledge) The assertion was implied that because this game is 'set in the Middle Ages' then intrinsically it should not go beyond that because it would be bad design. Again NOT because the developers themselves have explicitly stated that they do not want to go past that but because it would be bad design because the game is set in the Middle Ages full stop (again not because the developers roadmap) With that as a baseline this these are my points: 1. Because a game is set in the Medieval Ages does not mean it has to remain there, just because it is as it is. 2. Despite the fact that this specific game does not even start in the Medieval Ages it starts in the Stone Age. 3. Even if the developers themselves have said its a hard stop at Medieval Ages as a roadmap that does not mean a game (intrinsically any game) has to stop at the Medieval Age simply becasue that specific game has that end point as its current design. I can appreciate everyone replying to me with counter points not really related to items 1-3 but the core of my response is directly related only to items 1-3 nothing else. Anything else that is not directly related to items 1-3 is not really related to my response. So developer roadmaps, how hard to code would be to make, how unpleasant the grind would be, how long the game play would be etc are not related to what my response was about. Just becasue the book or TV documentary stops world history at the Middle Ages or just because a game does, does not mean it has to. One can read a book about World History from 4000 BC to 1500 CE (Atone Age to Middle Ages) does not mean someone can not write a book that covers world history from 4000 BC to 1975. Its natural for time to move forward and not stop. I am sorry you had to spend so much time with your well done response but I am afraid its not really related to my core response and perhaps I was not crystal clear the originally. I come from a set point that I assumes everyone is on the same page as me when it comes to mutable game design regardless of what the developer has planned or not as a default, unless explicitly stated otherwise. I hope that default makes sense. I hope this clarifies everything for everyone.

The programming involved to make this happen would be huge, the amount of game play required for gamers to learn would likely last them a lifetime, so I am not sure it would be possible functionally. However, my point was there is not some arbitrary rule (written or otherwise) that causes a violation on game play to make gameplay progress beyond Medieval Ages, nevermind the fact that the game itself STARTS in STONE age not Medieval age. Now the Developers might have stated they do not want to make the game past Medieval Ages and that is fine, but that does not mean it could not happen if they had a different view on the subject simply because the game is 'set in the Middle Ages' which by the way could be argued it does not in the first place. That was my only point.

So the idea is this. You start the game in the Stone age (year zero) by the time you get to Steel you are still in 'Middle Ages' but its no longer the stone age and its no longer year zero. So what do you do then? you keep going. You go into Steam then Industrial revolution then Cars then computers then space. I do not think becasue a game is currently set in Medieval Ages that it means the clock needs to stop ticking and most only remain in that era. I do not think there are any rules that time can not move forward.

I was just getting into semantics, not really important. For me 'windmill gearing has been nerfed' is easier for me to understand than 'windmills are unpowered' but I get it either way. I think the reason my understanding goes as it does is because windmills have been around for 6 years and only in the past 6 months have they changed. So a statement regarding a change rather than a statement of 'state of existence' makes more sense to me, but I got your point.

maybe to be more precise you mean you think high geared multiple windmills schemes is under powered. I get that, I typically do not do that and I think (although not sure) a standard single 5 sail windmill geared to 1:1 is exactly as it was before. So maybe the best way to say it is, gearing and running multiple windmills has been nerfed. Yup, I think everyone can agree on that framing.

At least speaking for myself (who would like that as well). The reason I play this game has nothing whatsoever to do with medieval, wilderness survial or primitive technologies. I can say the same was true when I played Wurm Online/Unlimited for 10 years it was not because it was set in medieval times nor was it because it was 'low fantasy'. So there is that anyway

There is a thread title something similar to this: 'Are waterwheels overpowered?' Windmills have been in the game for 6 years while the latest changes to mechanical power have been in the game for I think 6 months. Although you can not run 4 windmills (standard size) next to each other anymore, I have found the single 5 sail windmill to be the same usefulness as it has been for at least as long as I have been playing for a 1 1/2 years.

move 20,000 blocks south (its worth it) and find a translocator and use the translocator relocator. In my 'opinion' (but not really) the way to play this game properly is with mods.