PineReseen

The aesthetic is kinda utilitarian, but it looks sort of unfinished despite that. I'd personally have done a little bit more work on patching up the exposed dirt with either cobblestone or planks, but repurposing a ruin (at least from what I can gather in the picture) is a welcome touch. 4.3125/10

I mean, I gotta agree with @Teh Pizza Lady here, it already is kinda uncompromising. Certainly more than it is in like, Minecraft, I guess. I mean, yeah, I'm advocating for the storms to be changed right now because they're not working out. Although, the more ingrained a feature is, the less you can change it before the changes have to spill over into surrounding areas. Sort of like a game of Jenga, the more you keep adding the more dependent the newer features are on the core assumptions. At some point the risk-versus-reward may start getting a bit too high (when that point is reached is up for debate, though). My changes shouldn't be too intrusive as far as I am aware.

Fair enough. Drifters/other creatures killed while a temporal storm is ongoing would take more time to despawn and have increased drop rates of valuable items like temporal/rusty gears and maybe would have some additional drops. Would mesh well with what I want for storms too, as in the player needing to fight somewhat during storms. Okay, I have never had anything spawn on top of me when a storm was ongoing, so I can't really speak on this. However, reducing drifter spawns in houses wouldn't necessarily conflict with what I am trying to do, as I'd prefer the player to initiate fights, rather than the drifters. Having creatures spawn in a house is a rather artificial way to force a fight, and I'd rather have the player need to restore stability to more naturally make the player do something. I'm afraid that encouraging the player to interact with a storm via any kind of reward alone will make the storm more of an optional challenge that the player can either wait out or kill some creatures for better loot. That's why I think the player should be forced to fight lest they suffer some sort of stability-related consequence if we are to add increased loot chances. I haven't really ran into issues with scaling yet, since I haven't actually be forced to fight anything during the storm, but I think that improved scaling with intensity should definitely be considered if fighting is to be a part of temporal storms. I'll be honest, I don't really know what 7 Days to Die is. I can't really say anything about that. But what I talk about is what I think the storms should be; foremost a complication instead of a largely optional benefit. I don't exactly agree that players should be able to engage with the mechanic as they see fit, that's more reserved for the world customization system, I instead believe that players should work around the mechanic as they see fit. So the player is forced to fight the storm, instead of choosing to do so willingly, and perhaps then we increase drop rates, so the storm must be interacted with, and there's a tangible benefit.

I think you're conflating storms with the game here. I am generally referring to storms when talking about the "danger arriving to the player": I don't really understand what you're saying with the "Storms are not required for the game to be uncompromising" stuff, all I'm saying (or what I intend on saying, at least) is that a feature that's supposed to challenge the player doesn't do that effectively, and that it should be changed to do it effectively. I don't think that is a particluarly bad idea, when something's broken, you fix it. So like, world creation options? Y'know, turning off storms, creature aggresion, etc. I think I've already mentioned it in another thread, but temporal mechanics should also be more customizable. You should be able to customize existing and future storm mechanics via some options that the developers give us.

Hell yeah! How long do you have to wait for that though? I swear the first ones don't really give too much hope for getting to that point anytime soon...

That's the problem. The storms aren't uncompromising enough. They don't make the player feel in danger, since the player can just hide in a hole practically forever if they have enough food stockpiled. That's why I think they should be difficult to anticipate and require the player to actually fight/do something in response to the world being torn apart (doing something more with temporal stability during storms would definitely mesh well with the mechanics already in place).

I think this is the opinion I agree with. I don't know if it's just me, but very many people that post on threads like these seem to think that the player's agency is sacrosanct and that it can't be in any way challenged via in-game mechanics. I find that to be rather ridiculous, as creative mode isn't what this game's design philosophy is about. Hell, the game describes itself as uncompromising, why should the player be able to hunker down and ignore all the horrid creatures outside their flimsy door every single night? If the player doesn't arrive to the fight, the fight should arrive to the player. I've already mentioned this, but in my opinion the game doesn't do this enough. I think the model of largely unexpected flash storms that are a bit shorter but force the player to actually do something instead of stare into a wall would be better.

In my opinion, temporal storms are rather boring because they're too expected. They should occur somewhat more often and more randomly, maybe be a bit shorter, and have more subtle warnings right before it happens to make them fit better with the game. I think the whole idea of temporal storms is to throw a spanner into the player's plans and to make the player adapt to a surprise situation, and I think leaning harder into that would benefit the mechanic. A sort of flash flood but it's unnatural creatures instead. If the player is at home baking their 5th pie of the day, then it's all fine and dandy, if the player is out and about, then they need to either come back to shelter very quickly, improvise something, or try to hold their ground. Currently you have ample time to prepare, but if you didn't, then it'd definitely increase the stress and fear of a storm happening while you're not prepared. A more out there idea would be to make no place truly safe, so the player has to fight for their life instead of hiding in a corner, but I'm not sure how to execute this effectively. Maybe make temporal stability more punishing during temporal storms, so you have to kill some creatures to regain it? Could be very punishing for new players though.

I don't really know what that is, I usually just adjust the slider of quality on my GIMP export screen if I want to have a different quality JPEG. I also have a bigger monitor so I resize the image too, for me my usual resized and compressed size is around 250 Kb. That's rather unfortunate. I guess I could try to increase the thumbnail quality so it is more visible for people who don't have access to the external website. I'm not really familiar with postimages.org, some reviews on trustpilot seem to be rather negative, so I've just decided to settle for Imgur as it is a more well-known site, but I guess that does have it's bad sides...

Wait, so like, people actually don't place their base near spawn? I always build my packed dirt hut in a nice location almost immediately when I spawn in, then I expand on it as I progress. Any problems with resources I deal with via exploitation of unconquered lands and wilderness, I never thought about exploring for resources first and settling later.

YOU CAN PET CHICKENS!?

Yeah, the attachment limit is quite annoying. I've gone back and edited all my posts with an image to change it to a 1440x810 JPEG, I think it might be a tad too big for maximum efficiency, but I reduced my usage from almost 100% to around 25% initially. The issue is probably that the game saves the screenshots in the PNG format which is lossless (and thus has a way lower storage efficiency than lossy formats, which lose some data during compression). Broccoli Clock's solution seems very very interesting though, I may try it going forward! This thumbnail image (Made it even smaller, 810x456 with 50% quality) links to a high-res one on Imgur instead. I think it'd be better if the attachment limit increased with an account's age and total posts, so that members who stay with the game and post get more attachment size to not worry about running out when they post their base screenshots. Although I have no idea if that is even possible given that the code for this website seems to be mostly developed by Invision Community.

I'm not necessarily talking about an arctic playthrough, more like a subarctic/hemiboreal one. Think middle Quebec, Saguenay, even. Those temperatures don't really freeze you and give you ample time to set up. Hell, the Sámi and Greenlandic Inuit people live in those sort of climates and colder since like, the Bronze Age. And besides, if the way to play a cold start is to not play a cold start and get the hell out of there, then... Why do this? Why have a cold start? Set your respawn range to 5000 blocks on a temperate start and you'll get the same result of having to walk back to your southern base every time you die. I mean, at least we could get a reed for basic early-game stuff.

I think it's okay if extreme climate playthroughs remain very difficult, but somewhat warmer climates definitely do need fleshing out in terms of basic survival. At least have a reed type in negative temperature places, maybe some sorta fibre crafting recipe from hides, or even one or two flower types and an alternative healing source if we're feeling fancy. I've not yet dabbled in worldgen mods yet, I think I need a more vanilla experience for now. But please, we need to have a cold biome reed in the game. Please. I don't want to gather 128 dry grass anymore for a modded grass bundle.

Yeah, many articles have the distribution information either unclear or in many places, I had to experience that first with rushes and now when I was looking for cold flowers. I don't think having rushes and cattails in one area is a horrible idea, only issue that would cause would be slightly worse inventory management. We could make cattails more ground-level and rushes more montane if that's really a problem. I don't think goats and muskox are a bad idea as a source of fabric, would definitely be more realistic, but I personally haven't found them in my vicinity. I don't know if that's a big problem or I just need to explore a bit (Muskox apparently spawn in arctic climates, which I am not in, and goats are supposed to spawn in mountains, which I do not have in my immediate vicinity). Are wolves supposed to be a danger that you should avoid? Maybe, but bears have their own armour set, so maybe it's more of a risk versus reward kind of thing. Bushmeat isn't really a good source of satiety, but the fat and hide do provide real value. I should try to hunt a wolf next time another deer sails off into the ocean...