williams_482

In 1.22, planted crops surrounded by a 2 deep pit will catch quite a few animals, even if the crops are fenced off enough to be inaccessible. Eventually you'll kill enough that they won't come back for a while. This won't work in 1.21 though.

I was grumpy about this at first, but I'm coming around. The indirect buff to Terra Preta is a good thing for the game. The delay on windmills and gambeson armor is a little annoying, but there is always stuff to do in the mean time.

The update should not have affected stage 1 growth times. The bug which was fixed was a "fencepost problem" with nutrient consumption as crops grew. Flax, for example, has nine growth stages and is supposed to consume 50 K nutrient. Previously it was consuming 50 / 9 = ~5.5 K per growth stage. This is wrong because although there are nine stages, there are only eight transitions between stages because crops start at stage one, so flax should have been consuming 50 / 8 = ~6.3 K per growth stage. This results in significantly slower growth, but concentrated in the later stages. Under the old system flax in 75% moisture med fert soil at stage 6 would still have ~23% K fertility left to work with, and would grow to the next stage at 58% of baseline growth speed. Now under the same circumstances it will have ~18.5% K fertility left at the same stage, dropping it to 29% of baseline growth speed. All in all, this should increase total growth times relative to the old system by about four days on med fert soil, two days on high fert soil, and zero days on terra preta. That's meaningful (much harder to get two harvests in year one, and functionally impossible to get three in years 2+) Based on my first year crop in my 1.22 test world it seems like things have slowed by more than that, which could be me losing track of days, or could be one of the other factors (light level, temperature) interacting with the already slowed growth times in an unexpected way.

The game is set in 13th or 14th century Europe. Potatoes are a new world crop and did not exist in Europe until they were imported in the 16th century.

I'd be happy to see hides become ground stackable, so you could put a pile on the ground, scraping them with a knife and picking them up in sequence with minimal added effort. This is in-world so it's more immersive than grid crafting, but still quick and easy. I definitely don't want to be forced to squiggle the mouse back and forth for something I'll wind up doing dozens, maybe hundreds, of times, often in short succession. There's a difficult balance to be found with these in-world crafting interactions. Clayforming demonstrates this well: it's great for most things because you only need to make jugs, bowls, vessels, pots, etc occasionally. Repeatedly crafting vessels can get somewhat tiresome, but you generally don't need more than a couple dozen across an entire playthrough. Where it falls apart is with roof tiles, which if you need any, you need a whole bunch, and crafting that many becomes a miserable slog. I think it's important when designing these mechanics to differentiate between high frequency and low frequency actions, making the infrequent ones complex and the frequent ones either extremely simple or complex but eventually automateable. Clayforming would be improved dramatically if there were moulds we could craft for the high frequency items like shingles (or bricks, once the grid crafting option is removed) that allow rapid sequential crafting with simple inputs like holding right click with a stack of clay in hand. There's a mod out there that does this reasonably well, although I think it could be better balanced. Scraping hides, as a high frequency task that will have to be done over and over again for most playthroughs, needs to be more shingle mould than shingle clayform. The alternative is pain.

The axe only spends durability breaking the logs of the tree, not the leaves or branches. I just tested in game to make sure. I recommend forging metal axes to chop trees and break blocks quickly, but making flint axes (and using the copper axes you occasionally find in cracked vessels) to split firewood and do other inventory crafting tasks where durability is the only relevant factor.

You can test this by making a backup of your world, then going into your world in a 1.22 prerelease and placing your stored bushes to see what they do.

I may be misunderstanding you, but this is how the game currently works? If you use an axe to break the bottom block of a tree trunk, the whole tree will break.

Damage noises are frequently complained about and you do a good job digging into why. I hope the current crudely synthesized noises are placeholders and making them more generally pleasant is in the long term vision, but who knows. I haven't yet decided if I actually want this in the game, but it's a delightful and hilarious idea.

They actually changed this, and at the same time made stacks heat more slowly proportionate to their size. This is what Dok Kni has run into above, and I've complained about it in another thread. I hope they make some adjustments, because burning multiple stacks of peat and a couple dozen charcoal into the firepit to cook a stack of flint feels way too expensive and requires regular, carefully timed check ins to refresh or swap fuel.

I think it makes intuitive sense that the special "rapids" water flows, being more powerful than "regular" water and also much less able to spread out, should flow further along it's one block wide rivulets. Doubling the current five block flow distance seems reasonable off the cuff. My motivation for this change is to make aqueducts a viable way to convey rapids across longer distances, at the obvious cost of needing to build the aqueduct. Aqueducts are cool and should be encouraged, so that's a perk by itself. This would also allow more (but not infinite!) flexibility in where one can put a water powered base, and increase the chances of connecting two or three rapids in one place to set up a double or triple water wheel power train.

Uhh, I hope the devs consider current behavior a bug, but it comes from them fixing a long time existing bug which made crops consume less nutrients than they were "supposed" to. It's very possible that this is just how it goes now.

If they want to encourage timely repairs, it might be better to have a system like clothing where the armor loses effectiveness past a certain durability loss. Although I really don't think that's necessary; there's plenty of incentive to keep your armor repaired under the old system. Armor being totally destroyed if it ever runs out of durability is very harsh, I think, and hopefully just a bug. It's a thing that should never happen to a player paying attention and wearing the actually expensive types of armor, but it can conceivably happen due to a combination of forgetfulness and running into much more trouble than expected a long ways from home (such as on a story quest). In such a case having the armor be useless extra weight that you'd have to scramble to find repair material for is more than sufficient punishment. Losing it entirely and needing to make more from scratch just feels cruel.

Are you playing 1.21.6, or one of the 1.22 prereleases? Crop growth speed was absolutely massacred by a bugfix in the new prereleases, so it's now quite difficult to get a second harvest in your first year using medium fertility soil. I'm really hoping they either revert their bugfix or reduce nutrient consumption of all crops by ~20%, because the new growth times are a real bother. Sacks and windmills are a very normal, reasonable way to spend your first flax harvest. Definitely no need to feel foolish about that.

As a new player in 1.20, the discovery that I could charge those horrific monstrosities with a pointy stick and they would run away was quite a rush. Drifters don't look all that scary and shivers will introduce themselves and demonstrate their melee combat capabilities weather you like it or not, but bowtorn look so frightening and stay so far away that it's easy to wildly overestimate them.

Having the ability to relocate planted bushes would be nice for exactly that scenario. They could require a shovel and expire relatively quickly (1-2 days in the inventory) to make it more difficult but not impossible to transport them long distances. I'm struggling to come up with a way this would cause balancing problems given the time it takes for a planted bush to fruit, and the convenience/cozy building benefits are obvious.

Here's a question: why do items in the firepit have to cook one at a time? This feels like a TOBG holdover that makes little real world sense in conjunction with whole-stack heating mechanics. There's nothing sequential about cooking a big pile of things all at once. Either the stack should pull the top item off, heat it individually until cooked, then pull the next item and repeat, or it should heat the whole stack and cook the whole stack all in one go. The first option is effectively what we had before the change except the UI showed the whole stack heating up, which made it seem silly and opened up a loophole for much more efficient, much more tedious cooking. A UI which makes explicit how many things are actually heating up at once would help make the old system feel less ridiculous. Items can also cook in batches: Maybe foods like meat and bread are pulled from their stack and cooked in groups of four, small objects like flint cook 16 at a time, and larger objects would keep the current one at a time cadence.

I definitely don't object to "slow" cooling of metal workpieces happening faster, and tempering/case hardening/etc are all contexts where we should be leaving stuff to cool even in a maximally realistic metalworking setup. Quite like the idea of cooling rates varying by container, if they don't already. It seemed to me in earlier versions that crucibles held in heat better than cooked food, for example. But perhaps I was wrong about that? Crucibles seem to be every bit as rapid-cooling as anything else in this update.

In 1.22 the firepit was changed so that when cooking a stack of items, it would no longer reduce the temperature of the entire stack to zero and start over after each individual item cooked. That's a good change; the old way didn't make a lot of sense and could be gamed manually (remove the hot stack right before something cooks, feed hot items in one at a time). Personally I had installed a mod to "fix" it which had some accidentally beneficial side effects. To balance that change, stack heating time is now proportional to stack size. That makes sense, but in practice it feels far, far too punishing. I have just spent an entire day heating 64 flint to it's calcination temperature, burning through roughly three stacks of peat and 16 brown coal in the process, and now I'm facing the prospect of this all being to waste if my limited supply of charcoal runs out while pieces are still cooking. Needless to say, this feels harsh. To add insult to injury, things in the firepit seem to be cooling down substantially faster in 1.22-rc2 than they did in 1.21.6 and before. If stuff is going to take a literal day to heat up, it really shouldn't cool by a few hundred degrees in under a minute. My suggestion would be to make the heating cost of a stack non-linear in a way that makes heating larger stacks meaningfully quicker and more efficient than heating two half sized stacks. I don't have any physics based argument for this, only complaints that babying a fire for as long as I have is really not fun.

I'm not sure where I got that two week estimate, but it clearly isn't correct. Glad someone actually did their research!

There is no official estimate. Based on how things have gone in the past the official release will probably, but not definitely, happen in the next couple weeks. You can always download an unstable version and start a new world just to get a feel for the new mechanics, and potentially keep that world on the final release if nothing really major changes with world generation. That's what I and many others are doing.

I'm a relatively recent member, and I found this forum to be quite welcoming. Certainly relative to many other online spaces in the year 2026. Unfortunately as a community expands, a downturn in quality of discourse is almost inevitable. More total people means more nice and reasonable people, and also more rude, aggressive, immature, or otherwise disruptive persons. Calmer folks are less likely to weigh in if they think someone else has already said their piece so their numbers growing isn't all that visible, while the handful of folks inclined towards disruptive behavior make themselves very visible. That visible disruptive behavior itself has a chilling effect on other users, chasing away the kinds of people who just want a friendly chat and not a flame war. This isn't a comment on the current state of this forum so much as how online communities generally go. The only real way to stop this is active moderation. Moderators have to be willing and able to quickly and firmly establish what behavior is or is not acceptable, giving violators the opportunity to correct their behavior and removing them if they refuse. Regular users can have some influence here by modeling good behavior and gently nudging troublemakers to behave better, but some users only respond to consequences which regular users are powerless to dispense. Unfortunately, content moderation here appears somewhat lacking. I understand why: moderating a forum is a crappy, thankless job where you have to put up with being called a nazi for telling people they should be nicer. You have power, but if that sort of power is inherently rewarding to you then you are probably not a person who should be trusted with it. I should know; I experienced the mixed blessing of moderating a modestly large online community for almost a decade. This forum has the added bonus of every user being a paying customer, and telling paying customers that they need to change their behavior or be removed can have an immediate negative impact on the company's bottom line. Not doing this can be much worse in the long run, but the effects aren't so immediately obvious so quickly. There's also the aspect where the worst users we get here start by being very aggressive about how bad some part of the game is. The devs probably feel like they can take that criticism and don't want to look thin skinned, but being really mean to the devs encourages bad behavior from other users who want to defend the developers, and the whole situation turns toxic very quickly. I'm actually impressed by how resilient this community has been to those sorts of things: we've had some relatively hostile threads started by someone wildly overreacting to the recent update, and although they weren't good by any means, I expected much worse. The core users here (especially, but far from only, LadyWYT) being calm and reasonable is the reason things didn't spiral more than they did. I get the sense that this board used to be moderated more stringently, because there is at least one user (I think a couple) who clearly used to be regular contributors, but replaced their forum signatures with angry criticisms of the game and show up once in a blue moon to complain about how they were "censored" or "silenced." Obviously these people had some complaint which they took way too far, suffered appropriate consequences, and lack the maturity to recognize that they were the problem. Dealing with users like this sucks! You feel bad because they used to act reasonable and be helpful contributors, but they did actually step over a line, and they responded so poorly to being warned about it that they turned into huge toxic problems almost instantly and had to be removed entirely. You worry that you could have phrased things better (because you know damn well you aren't perfect either), and maybe then this obviously unstable person could have just continued doing their helpful and reasonable things. Wallow in that for too long and you get trigger shy about correcting even really obvious bad behavior. With all that said I may be wrong about the moderation here. The moderation team could plausibly be doing their jobs strictly in private without feeling the need to show the flag, and none of us would know the difference unless we decided to start getting in fights. In which case props to them. In any case I wish them all good luck in keeping this place as pleasant as possible.

Tannin already exists in the vanilla game as part of the leatherworking process. Scraped hides are soaked in weak tannin and again in strong tannin to get leather. Why this is only a secondary/tertiary step I'm not sure. Thorfinn says he always goes with linen sacks, as they're available quickly and are enough storage to get you through chapter 2 if you're stingy with what you keep. Personally I've found them to be pretty nice upgrades over baskets and quicker to get than backpacks. Flax is important, but if you're aggressive about gathering as many seeds as you can and planting it immediately, you should wind up with more than enough for a windmill by winter. Not sure how the reduced yields and slower crop growth are going to affect that in 1.22, though.

I think this would be a positive change. A berry bush with no adjacent bushes could consume nutrients at the replenishment rate, while more densely packed hedges require some artificial assistance. That seems more consistent with reality than either the current system or a nutrient-agnostic implementation.

The problem with this explanation is that it's a totally ineffective way to stop an anticipated "strategy" which itself is obviously silly? We already know people are more than willing to dig up and replace med fert soil for their crops, even though simply rotating crops and adding more fields seems a clearly superior approach. The idea that someone would be so uninterested in using all the bones they surely have lying around to fertlize bushes every once in a while that they would rather destroy the bushes and replace them with cuttings that take half a year to grow to maturity is believable, if only because people already do silly things. The idea that they would be discouraged from that by the need to bring in fresh med fert soil is obviously ridiculous.