Steel General

Ah! That didn't seem to be OP's concern, but I can see how that subtext might've been intended I'm surprised to note they're not included in the next version's colorful pottery. Weird. I gotta wonder, then, if it's realism - I surely wouldn't have expected cream to come from blue, so maybe there's an unexpected reason blue isn't an option with these methods.

This is true of all art that involves feedback from the audience. I think the key is to allow yourself to be inspired by the audience response without letting yourself be pressured by it. Art that tries to make everyone happy is useless mud that drowns our culture in irrelevance (monetization ruins everything) - the artist's vision is indispensable.

I've mentioned before elsewhere, but I won't let that stop me from mentioning again, that I think classes could best be implemented through kit bags. Give the character another 'clothing' slot for kit bags. Each kit bag has it's own recipe of appropriate items (including at least one 'bag' item); equipping one to the slot makes a set of class traits available. I'd make some more expensive than others, but I'm also okay with the player picking one to start with. Commoner would be the condition of having no kit bag. I'd go ahead and level all adjustments - Commoner would have all the maluses combined and none of the bonuses. I'm also okay with making the player start as a Commoner A Hunter's kit bag could be pretty simple, uses a hunter's bag, but you're going to need an antler for it. The Tailor and Clockmaker would both have difficult kits to assemble, requiring metalworking, and likely require leather backpacks. The Blackguard's kit is going to need a Blackguard's Pin, found in ruins (maybe bought) and a sturdy leather backpack. Class-specific items just means equipping the kit bag is part of the recipe. You can carry the others in your inventory if you insist on the flexibility As for character interactions, much of that can still make sense - I think the traders know you're not one of the original Blackguards, but they can see that you intend to follow their ways and respond accordingly.

In my current game, most recent stable vanilla, I have many structures made with brick and tile from blue clay. In the beehive kiln you can fire them to a cream color. The recipes are the same as for other clay items.

In a role-playing game, one plays a role. If you're not playing a role, it doesn't really matter how many stats they are or that they develop. If the way you play the game doesn't change with the role you've decided you're adopting on this playthrough, it's not a role-playing game. Conversely, if you play the game differently depending on what role you've decided to adopt, it doesn't matter that there aren't stats or development. Battleship can be a role-playing game if you decide to make it so - just decide at the beginning if you're the fleet commander or just the highest-ranking officer near the radio when the fleet commander got killed, and play accordingly. Most important, though, is that playing the role is the game: if playing Battleship as the plucky ensign means you never win, that's more-or-less fine, because that's the role you've chosen to play. Of course, the joy of role-play is greatly enhanced by narrative and development.

It is historically accurate that armor hinders healing. A suit of full plate takes several minutes to put on or take off with at least one helper, preferably two. Full plate keeps the blood in really well, but it's still possible to punch a hole through it, and the wound thus delivered cannot be bandaged with the armor in the way. There is no stuff-through or reach-under: that wound is going to kill the wearer by blood loss until they aren't wearing that armor anymore. In general, if a person survives such a wound, it's because someone else cut the armor off them to get to it. The straps are the first to go, but the deformed metal might have to get removed with metalworking tools - many a noble died while his squires desperately hammered and pried armor panels so they could save him with just a strip of cloth and a quick knot. Full plate really is a death trap - that's why in later eras they went to just a breastplate, helmet, and some chain on the limbs.

I've been liking the idea that the pick's point of impact could be a miniature stone-blasting bomb - it would make tunnels have a much rougher appearance. I also like the idea of swapping between pick and chisel/hammer to relieve ore chunks from an ore block - the pick's impact might destroy some ore, so you swap between tools to optimize both time and product. And yeah, shoveling less-than-a-whole-block at a time appeals to me, too, as does carving through a tree to fell it, instead of just click-holding on a block. Random marks from accidents appeal to me rather less, but I might accept the tradeoff.

I have heard, though never witnessed (because I never took the chance), that rain will dissolve charcoal.

Reading this, it occurs to me how cool it would be to find wrecked machinery for which we must hold shift+right-click with a hammer and chisel to open its loot box. Possibly, it should require iron-tier tools. It might be fun (and wonderfully frustrating) if this is how you loot locusts. Another option, a loot box of mutually exclusive rows. Each column of item slots in the box represent loot options - e.g., you can have two rusty gears or three metal scraps - which is then closed out after you select your preferred option. This represents the need to prioritize salvage: some things are getting destroyed to get other things out.

The meaning of your experience is determined by the context you bring to the interpretation of it - this is where biases rear ugly heads and can most certainly lead to falsity. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that your experience is based in objective reality, but I have every reason to expect your interpretation of your experience to favor your prior conclusions. Some people's interpretation of their experience of a solar eclipse was that a dragon ate the sun and spat it back out. Other people, upon hearing them exclaim "I saw a dragon eat the sun!" are entirely justified in saying "False." In this case, we agree that deep discussions are much less frequent than shallow discussions - why that should be so is not really a part of either of our direct experiences, so identifying the cause must depend on interpretations of experience. Meaning is not a principle, it is the foundational habit of thought from which sapience arises. There is no avoiding it. I sound so clever when I deliberately neglect the context necessary for me to make a clever point, but it was bad for the discussion. To be charitable about interpreting your statement I have to recognize the greater context in which that sentence occurred: by 'meaning', you are referring specifically to establishing a common meaning for words and phrases, which most certainly is a principle of clear communication. It's a pretty good one too, when it's well-applied. However, key to applying it well is recognizing that meaning, even of words and phrases, varies with context, and there is no reason to imagine the meaning one ascribes a word is fundamentally more 'right' than that which another would ascribe it. Establishing common meanings is a tool to be engaged mutually; asserting meaning and demanding adoption is a weapon for rhetorical abuse. Of course, weapons are tools too, and just because they're collected doesn't mean they're used for violence - a rhetorical crossbow makes a fine pointer, as long as everyone's reaction to its use doesn't preclude giving their attention to that at which it's pointed, rather than the way it gets pointed. This is tautological: 'healthy' and 'civilized' are, in this context, just synonyms of 'good', which is to say that they promote and express your values (truth and meaningful communication). There are civilizations that do not value these things for their own sake (though they may make use of them in certain settings), and while we might well regard them as unhealthy or uncivil, objectively they succeed at perpetuating their civilizations through generations in competition with our civilization. There is no cause to imagine our values are objectively necessary to 'health'. That said, within the scope of our community, those are certainly good things (maybe not essential). However, for any person to present themselves as an objective arbiter of truth and meaning is bad for the community (certainly not ruinous). For example, the phrase "uncompromising game" has a vague meaning that is marginally useful to this community's discussions; it can be useful to an argument to establish a very specific meaning to that phrase, and it's not necessarily a deal-breaker if that specific meaning diverges significantly from the sense in which the community uses it, but to then assert this was the only meaning the words should ever have had is quite unreasonable. Maybe the community could benefit from a more specific meaning to that phrase, but to insist that everyone adopt the one that's useful to a specific argument is... specious. Use of principles is not equivalent to enforcing them upon the community. Trying to get you to not enforce your principles upon the community is not the same as enforcing my principles upon the community. Setting aside the Paradox of Intolerance, you are not the community, and I'm not enforcing: I am trying to get you reevaluate your principles in a greater context, not presuming you to be unprincipled and offering the light of my wisdom to fill that void. You find what you seek, and you seek to dismiss, but in choosing what you seek you neglect that part of the context which isn't useful, and so full meaning eludes. I've seen such 'useful' negligence in many of your dismissals. Easy outs do not serve the discussion, though I'm sure there's comfort in your rhetorically fortified position - just because someone presents their argument right in front of your murder-hole does not make the crossbow the best tool for engagement.

I recently found iron ore while spelunking, and when I broke it it seemed to be waterlogged - left a water source-block in its place (I think a true waterlogging would have been outflowing before I broke it). It occurred to me that could be a good mechanism for springs - there could be mantle-adjacent water bodies with a waterlogged seam of rock pluming from them to the next surface, be it cavern, mountain, or anywhere in between. It would produce the mountain-side waterfalls we now have, but also underlie some ponds, and result in groundwater shields like that you describe. Then, we could establish new mechanics that depend on the waterlogged stone, such as well construction. ... it should probably be cracked stones, but it occurs to me as interesting to have such spring water also propagate through cracked layers it encounters.

False - deep discussion is not discouraged by the community. Shallow discussions are easy, and so are plentiful. Deep discussions tend to make people keenly aware of the limits of their knowledge and ability, and most doubt the quality of their own speculation, so the deepest of discussions tend to bottom out relatively quickly. The only discouragement in this is individual choices to not blindly dig. It can still happen - the key is to add value to the discussion; most people drop out when they doubt they are adding value, but they would happily read text of any length if the average value remains high. Someone who adds lots of text without adding value is, to say the least, inconsiderate of the community's attention, and they are quite likely to get skimmed more than read. Meaning depends on context, and one of the easiest bad-faith rhetorical tactics is to neglect just the right context to result in a meaning that is easily dismissed. When some statements are considered wrong and others right solely because part of the context is deemed irrelevant while other parts are deemed supremely relevant, the conversation withers quickly: no one is obliged to engage bad faith with good faith. When the desire to be right drives one to rhetoric it is virtually guaranteed that no further value can be added to the conversation. This is not to equivocate right and wrong, nor to prevaricate meanings. General Intelligence is the ability to identify which context matters, to result in the meaning that best aids understanding and prediction - being 'right'. It is a mistake to imagine this is effortless, or to presume everyone will get the same results on the first try. It is a mistake to presume ones own initial apprehension reflects truth... though it might, so don't presume it doesn't, either. False: principles are personal choices. To try to enforce them upon the community is a short, Puritanical path to evil. For the community to enforce them on individuals is a short path to witch trials. Diversity of principles, and in the values the principles attempt to actualize, is a good thing in society and in discussion. It is important, though, to recognize that ones own values are not universal, no matter how 'obvious' they seem. If your reply neglects relevant context, or if the reply goes on at length without adding enough value to justify the length, you'll get dispute instead of acclaim. If, instead of responding to your points, people discuss your approach to conversation, that is not an attack, it is criticism, and you should not imagine it is sign of a degenerate community. Rather, you should examine your approach to conversation. Adding value to a discussion is not just a matter of being right, nor of making good points: one must demonstrate (not elucidate) cognitive strategies that let other participants feel they are more prepared for the next discussion, of whatever subject. If you demonstrate strategies that make them feel discussion is a pointless endeavor, that takes value out of the discussion, no matter how right or well-appointed the meaning those strategies conveyed. Good-faith discussion means that when a person expresses themselves one should respond to what they meant to express, not pounce on their expression for every possible misinterpretation it could have conveyed, much less to pick a misinterpretation and pretend like it's their intended meaning. That ends otherwise good discussions, transforming them into twisted caricatures of discussion that waste everyone's attention.

There are still some recipes that aren't in the handbook - metal shields, for example. A little educated guessing will get it done though. In this case, my first guess would be to make a brass block and then put it in the crafting grid to see if that's how alternate forms are produced. I don't have a second guess, though

The earliest rails were made of wood - it wasn't until people started running steam engines on them that wood could no longer take the load. In the BCs, the Greeks were hauling boats over an isthmus on a wooden track system for several hundred years. No need to expect that any part of it will be truly metal-heavy... even so it'll probably be the most metal-heavy construction up to that point

I've had the game forget my credentials with seemingly no excuse - no update, reboot, crash, or anything else to explain it. I've imagined maybe a certificate expired. Aside from that occasional weirdness, it ought just keep your information from the last use and go from startup to start menu without any interaction necessary. For a secure password you can remember, just pick a series of words you can remember, add some punctuation, and trade a couple letters for numbers. E.g.: T33nage?Mutant!NinjaTurtles is a very secure password (or was, until just now ), and very easy to remember since it's just four words with slight modification. It's no easier for a computer to crack than any other 27 characters that include letters, numbers, and punctuation.

Picking up the raft should require a shift-right click. If you swapped the sneak and sprint keybinds, you'll probably have use shift-right click to place the oar.

The distance is stretched or compressed by changes to the default world height. Adding world height will add both dirt and stone between the nuggets and the deposit. I think some version recently tried to have fewer of the deposits appear on the topmost level of stone, but I'm not sure - it's been a few versions ago.

I've noticed that when it starts in my game (vanilla), while healing will lead to satiety loss, it does not return to proper functionality: once healed, satiety stops depleting. Also, ctrl-f1ing the world doesn't reliably fix it - I have to shut down the game and restart it to have hunger again.

I have often imagined something similar. I would like a workbench with some clamping mechanism to construct advanced tool handles by whittling them down from rough sticks. The pan and club probably shouldn't require the full workbench, but the crafting mechanism would be the same. Of course, I'd be very happy to go full Tinker's Workshop on tool assembly, but I'd need the mod to be the Vintage take on it - I think the only 'trait' from the handle and the binding should be durability.

I would like materials to have Angles of Repose, where the chance of falling increases to certainty with unsupported stack height. Grass on top of the stack or a tree adjacent to it ought to reduce the chance sufficiently that small overhangs can develop, but that's a much harder problem to solve than my fist sentence was I wouldn't mind seeing this extended to packed dirt, cob, and cobblestone - all of those should stack very well but overhang poorly. At this point, though, we're edging into the cave-in system... and these systems should probably be merged, eventually. Of course, I'd really like to see all the sediments shovel and lay like coal to make a smooth, smooth world.

I know not of what you speak, but I believe 7embre is referring to the amulet we can make with rope and a temporal gear (it can also be crafted back into a temporal gear). That way the starting gear doesn't occupy otherwise-useful inventory.

Why would anyone who had something to post go looking in places where they can't post? All the hassle of searching a forum and clicking through old topics to see if something is relevant, and I can't post in it? Not a chance: I'm making a new topic, every time. We might as well delete all the old stuff if we're gonna close it, because the only thing it'll ever be used for is snarky linking. So do fresh topics. The dozenth 'But Birds!' is not more deserving of being kept than any old post. People have bad habits concerning others' attention, and eventually this will be addressed in public schools; for now, facile self-serving fools are inevitable, and we must learn to use forums in spite of their 'contributions'. I have posts with no replies, and posts where I hope to someday get better replies. It would not help my goal or the community's use of the forum if I post 'bump' on them once a month to make sure they don't get locked. It is just fine if people who are interested can find them and continue the discussion after they someday find this community. Valuing discussion by its freshness is a bad habit we are being taught by badly designed social media interfaces. Resist. It would be of value to have pinned threads in which past discussions are summarized, but someone would have to curate that... and new people would have to see the merit of looking at it to solve the problem that has been identified in this thread. To be clear, the solution I'm offering is "get good". Forums are hard to use well - don't lower their usefulness to meet expectations of new arrivals.

What in the world is wrong with old posts? It strikes me as a very weird bias to have. Discussions are not trophies, and they're not over. We keep old topics around for the same reason we can make new ones. ... and for the love of convenience, use them instead of making new ones on the same subject. Read them and you might find out your new post would have been no contribution at all.

This seems like a good place to mention: AI projectiles are trivial to dodge. Juke and jive! As you move forward, rapidly alternate A and D - anything aiming at you will presume your travel will continue in the current direction and aim to that side of you, while you continue on straight ahead. Anything directly to the side of you has a good chance of hitting you, but the rest of the projectiles will patter all around. To throw off the ones beside you, alternate sprinting and walking - this is trickier and a small margin to chase, but it might be worthwhile if that margin is populated by nightmares. That said, if you don't want to cheese the AI, you can just watch for their tell - e.g., arm going back - and then sidestep. I've dodged many a stone like so, but haven't tried it on arrows yet - for them, I sidestep behind cover.

Snow only gathers on full blocks - if you've replaced everything in the square with half-slabs, farmland, etc., you'll get no piled snow. If that square aligns to chunk boundaries and there are full blocks not getting snow, that's pretty weird - variation in biome ought not make a one-chunk pocket.