williams_482

What do you mean by them not "really" being deserts? What are you expecting which isn't there, or vice versa?

The 50% chance is when the animal enters the trap. If you have a trap with the animal inside, that 50% die roll has already succeeded and you should be able to pick up the trap and relocate the animal with no further chance of escape. Did you have the open backpack slot active when you picked up the trap? You can select which backpack slot is active by pressing sprint (usually CRTL) and 1, 2, 3, or 4 , then whatever backpack slot object you pick up will go to that slot. It sounds like you might be picking up the basket in a normal hotbar slot. Instead of moving the item to an empty backpack slot or simply failing to pick it up, the game is releasing the animal and allowing you to pick up an item (a reed basket trap) that fits in a regular inventory or hotbar slot.

2 leftover what?

How can random/pseudorandom crosshair drift ever be a "neutral" aspect of the shooting process? It seems obvious to me that it's a bad thing and to be avoided, assuming you are trying to hit a target. Leaving out a zero-drift grace period doesn't encourage learning to live with the random drift so much as it encourages absolutely perfect release timing: You want to hit a difficult target? Better release the arrow the instant it's at full draw. What is the counterplay to deal with crosshair drift in your model? Using a predictable oscillating drift and timing when the crosshair is going to drift across the target? I agree that lighter bows should have longer grace periods, scaling with arrow speed and damage. You should be able to kill rabbits with a bow that gives you a couple seconds of aiming time before crosshair drift begins, while the strongest bows only give you the half second after full draw. I wasn't clear enough, but 1L of wine is what I had in mind. That's enough to be disruptive without being totally hopeless.

Crosshair drift with a bow is realistic because holding a bow (especially a war bow, for which an 80-100 lb draw weight would have been pretty normal) at full draw for any length of time is difficult and exhausting. This is an area where moviemakers treating bows like firearms really messes with our perception of how they functioned: no premodern general would have had his troops draw their bows and just stand there until he thinks it's the perfect time to shoot, and nobody was holding prisoners at arrow-point with a drawn bow. I think a realistic implementation of crosshair behavior when firing a bow would be something like this: - As the bow is drawn, the crosshair starts quite large and shrinks down to a simple cross as the bow is drawn to maximum. If the arrow is released early, it will be affected by random shot drift proportional to the size of the crosshair, same as in the game right now. - Once the bow is fully drawn and the crosshair is at it's minimum size, their is a brief period (perhaps half a second) with no crosshair drift at all. After that grace period has elapsed, the crosshair begins a slow random drift which accelerates over several seconds, capping out at the drift speed you currently get from drinking wine. - If we had a stamina/exertion mechanic which was more visible than the current satiety drain, keeping the bow drawn would tax it heavily. Eventually (not sure exactly how soon, maybe after 10 seconds?) the player would be forced to either retract the bow or release the arrow. - An arrow from a fully drawn bow will not experience any shot drift. It will fly true in the direction of the crosshair. All in all, this incentivizes firing arrows just after the bow is at full draw for maximum accuracy. Both timing and (especially) aim become areas where player skill really matters, as you'll want to have a very good idea of where you are shooting before actually drawing the bow. It also creates a very easy metric to differentiate stronger bows (and perhaps stronger classes). A light bow of the sort usually used for hunting would have a much longer grace period before the crosshair begins to move about, while a longbow or recurve would have a tight tolerance and demand a quick release to preserve accuracy.

These actually exist. They are quite rare and they don't damage structures, but they do damage the player.

It is odd that you are getting spawns there. I've never seen or heard of that happening before.

Thats a "swap into creative, break the spikes, swap back" situation if ever there was one. Mean.

Most people don't appreciate being implicitly compared to a 9 year old. People especially don't appreciate being told that you are dealing with their emotional responses using techniques that you also use to deal with your 9 year old. I wasn't involved in this part of the conversation, but I read that and immediately expected an unfavorable response. The pigeon comment is the same deal. Whatever the intent, it reads as if you are comparing the other person to a pigeon. That's pretty insulting. There's also a strong undercurrent of "your response is emotional, thus your conclusion is wrong" in those posts. All of our responses to this are based in emotional reactions to facts, and "this doesn't really bother me" is no more inherently right or wrong than "this feels really bad and makes me uncomfortable." I don't think you're trying to be dismissive and abrasive, but it does read that way.

Prior to the accelerated cooling times in the latest update, this was true. In 1.22 though I've noticed that I need to finish cooking copper with something hotter than brown coal just to make sure that it stays pourable long enough to fill 25 ingot moulds.

Obviously we don't agree on this topic and have argued several times, but I just want to say you seem like a very pleasant, thoughtful, and reasonable person.

Quicklime is the other one that's a pain to cook over a fire and doesn't give any vanilla alternatives. There are various mods out there that allow custom lime kiln structures, or cooking lime in a bloomery. I use one of the later and am happy with it. Hopefully something along those lines makes it into the base game soon.

Here's what's happening, over and over again in cycles: - Person #1 comes in here with an angry take about Maltiez that is based on misunderstanding a technical term, or simply factually incorrect information. - Some people in what we'll call group #2 respond to them, clarifying the misunderstanding or correcting the incorrect information. - Some other people in group #3 accuse the people in group #2 of making pointless pedantic arguments in Maltiez's favor. Most members of group #3 are well aware of the facts of the case, and have come to an informed judgement that they feel Maltiez should be fired. That's totally legitimate! This is a highly subjective thing and we can all agree on the facts and come to different conclusions, and there's plenty of argumentitive ground to be worked over that doesn't contest established facts. Person #1 does does not have all the facts! If they're going to come to an informed judgement themselves, they need to have those facts! It seems to me (from my inevitably biased perspective) that group #3 disagrees with this position, purely on the ground that person #1 already agrees with group #3, and they feel the important thing is not person #1 making an informed judgement, but person #1 continuing to agree with group #3. This is a complicated, technical issue and the facts are relevant. There is also a large subjective component and plenty of people are going to disagree on those grounds. Can we stick to informing people of those facts and arguing about the subjective aspects here?

How do you set up these networks?

The irony of this thread showing up when it did adds some delightful levity to this whole crazy kerfuffle. I am very grateful for it.