CastIronFabric

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?

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)