williams_482

The trouble here is that the line between "click" and "hold" gets very fuzzy. If someone has a habit of holding the mouse button down just a little too long when clicking on stuff, how many very nasty mistakes can they make before they figure out what the problem is? What if I want to hit something with a bare hand or a random object? Maybe my Elk is in an annoying spot and I'm a jerk so I just punch it to chase it off temporarily? I don't want to kill it, and I don't want to bother selecting the weakest possible weapon, I just want to whack it with my food bowl or a block of dirt that I already had in my hand. That's a bit of a silly example but I'm sure there are others, and it illustrates that this fundamentally is an exercise in predicting what players want to do based on various contextual clues. Those predictions will never be completely right, so you have to prioritize erring in the direction of giving the player a safe platform to experiment and learn. Every context specific change that is added is another exception the player has to remember, which as you say sacrifices the very consistency you are trying to get out of this new system. If users are accustomed to LMB for take in all other contexts, what's the first thing they're going to try when opening an elk's saddlebag? Better hope that first interaction doesn't happen next to a large cliff face or sinkhole.

I like the writeup, but I'm not sure I agree. Right now, the game is set up such that LMB is what you use for any and all inherently destructive actions: attacking and breaking blocks. Players may forget exactly which modifier keys are necessary for any given action, but they know that variations on RMB are "safe" while LMB is "dangerous". That's a valuable safety buffer which goes away if the dominant model guiding click interactions becomes the more theoretically consistent "LMB to take, RMB to place". Users in this thread have already mentioned berry bushes and elk as situations where misclicks with LMB can be very bothersome, and inevitably there are others (milking a sheep, for example). I don't think that's an acceptable tradeoff. Currently the game's interactions are occasionally confusing and inefficient, but messing up irrevocably is relatively difficult as long as LMB and RMB are being read correctly (Mac trackpad users beware). A system where users have a better intuitive understanding of what should happen, but their occasional errors are much more damaging, is a clear downgrade.

Run cd Applications first. "cd" is short for "change directory", it moves you into the given directory.

What do you get when you run ls -la "Vintage Story.app" from your applications folder?

My only objection at this stage is how long it takes for cuttings to mature. In my RC test world I planted my initial batch of cuttings at a point when they took a couple months to grow to maturity, and that seemed about right to make them useful without being super easy. Now they typically take an entire year? A year into a typical playthrough food is pretty well solved as a problem from pursuing things with much shorter turnaround times, such as every plantable crop, bees, and arguably fruit trees. I do actually quite like the current nutrient/fertilizer setup. It's a bit of an awkward graft of the three nutrient system farmland uses, but I think it works and does a good job "tiering" rewards for effort: you'll get some but weak yields from just planing in med fert soil, better yields from just adding bonemeal (which everyone should be swimming in anyway), and pretty good yields from both bone meal and saltpeter. That all seems fair.

How attached do you feel to your current world? If starting anew would feel like throwing away your current progress, or you have exciting plans to build in areas you've already explored in your current world, you should probably stick with it. You'll get stuff from the new update in any unexplored chunks. If you aren't feeling super attached to your current save, or feel like a fresh start would be a good opportunity to learn form past mistakes, I'd recommend starting a new world and going from there.

You can add in rapids in creative mode, and the new fish should spawn just as easily in an old world as a brand new one. So you have options!

This is a great change, unfortunately it isn't working. I just spawned into a new world to immediately see four(!) wolves less than 50 blocks away, and a brown bear not far behind them.

This is a known problem with the new version on macs, which are incorrectly identifying the game as broken. This wiki page has instructions for how to fix it.

It's pretty common on here or Reddit to see someone lobby for a mechanic that encourages eating a more varied diet not just in terms of nutrition categories (which is already reasonably well encouraged) but specific food items. They want a mechanical reason to eat more than redmeat-turnip stew and redcurrant pie, a combination that will safely max out the four easy nutrition bars indefinitely. There's a mod out there which adds a "novelty bar" that the player can fill up over time by eating a wider range of different foods, and gives rather substantial bonuses to damage and mining speed when maxed out. This does provide the right incentive, but it has two problems: 1. It doesn't just encourage you to vary your diet, but gives you a specific target for variety that you have to hit and keep hitting. For some players this is a fun little minigame, but for many it is more like a chore. 2. The bonuses are substantial. +35% damage and +20% mining speed? That's a big deal! But of course it has to be, or the effort gone through to maximize dietary variety wouldn't seem worth the incremental gains. Instead of having a progress bar to fill out and gain a benefit largely unrelated to the meals themselves, how about we just make meals with more novel foods more effective at being meals? There's no longer a specific target to hit and the effects are subtle, but there's still an incentive there for players to mix things up a bit. Mechanically, I'd suggest something like this: Currently (according to the wiki) meals pause the hunger bar for 30 seconds for each 100 saturation consumed. For a simple implementation I would cut that substantially by default, 10 seconds per 100 sat, plus an additional 0-20 seconds per 100 sat calculated from the percentage of the previous n (1,000? 5,000? not sure) saturation points consumed which came from this same ingredient. This formula would be set to give benefit for any ingredient that makes up less than 25% of recently consumed food, scaling linearly such that an ingredient which made up 25% or more of recent meals would give zero variety benefit, 24% would give a very slight additional benefit, and 0% would give the full benefit. So for example, if you eat hefty carrot soup for the very first time, that 600 sat would pause your hunger bar for 60 seconds baseline, plus another 120 seconds for novelty to reach the same 180 second pause you get from eating this food in vanilla right now. If carrots made up 12.5% of your recent meals, then you would get the baseline 60 seconds plus another 90 seconds for novelty. If at least 25% of your diet is carrots, another hefty carrot soup will only give you the baseline 60 second pause. Etc, etc. I would want these numbers set at a level where frequently consumed redmeat-cabbage stew becomes a worse travel food than a novel but less saturation-dense meat-veggie stew, but not enough to make that redmeat-cabbage stew useless for long distance travel. Also note that this will have a minimal effect on the early game, because that "past foods" bar will be empty at the start of the game and only slowly fill up as the player eats. If they scrape through the first day on mushrooms and berries but cook up a nice fish stew on May 2nd, that first few servings of fish stew will have the same hunger pause as they would in vanilla right now. The criteria for novelty could be made more complicated in many different ways if desired. For example, food could be grouped into subcategories (mushrooms, root vegetables, etc) such that occasionally eating any mushrooms at all will get you a significant benefit over just eating carrots, onions, and turnips, but eating many different kinds of mushrooms gives only a marginal bonus over eating just the one type plus other veggies. Meal types could have novelty benefits beyond just their ingredients, which would have to be carefully tuned because there are so few meals to begin with (soup, veggie stew, meat stew, porridge, pie, jam). This could have interesting effects, like encouraging players to subsist on less efficient meals while preparing for a large journey when they'll need their most nutritionally dense options to be as effective as possible. There is also opportunity to make currently unfavored foodstuffs more prominent. For example, maybe alcohol could have a disproportionate effect on the recently consumed food tracker, giving you a reason to get wine drunk in the cellar the night before embarking on a journey. Etc, etc. If this were implemented I would want the current hunger bar pause of any given meal to be listed along side it's saturation value, but I would not want any of the recently consumed food trackers to be directly visible to the player. I explicitly don't want to give players a new bar to track how perfectly they are varying their diet. Instead, the goal is to make novel foods mechanically more effective in a subtle but meaningful way, without giving an explicit target to min/max against.

I'd support the game defaulting to sunshine at world creation. It doesn't have to last long, but I think it's useful and pleasant for a player's very first moments in the game to give them a good, clear view of the surrounding terrain. This game is often beautiful, and that's an understated but substantial part of it's charm. Lean into that. If it starts raining five minutes later, who cares. You've had your chance to look around, and if it bothers you just head for a drier area (but maybe plant some seeds first). The game does helpfully communicate how much rain is to be expected in any given location so it's pretty easy to avoid the worst of the weather once you know what you are doing.

A sling is easy to create, but quite difficult to use properly. There's a reason that slingers in ancient armies tended to be from a handful of very specific regions (like the Balearic islands off the east coast of Spain) with a reputation for producing excellent slingers. "Twirl a rock over your head and release it at a target" sounds relatively simple, but it's quite difficult to do that accurately and for an inexperienced slinger the chance of the rock flying off in a random other direction is pretty high. This is likely also why slingers are so rare in movie reproductions of ancient warfare: it's really difficult to find extras who can use even prop slings safely and believably. The realistic way to go about this would be to make the sling craftable by anyone, but only useable by the Malefactor. Except that's pointless; why would you let the player craft a useful-seeming item they actually can't use? So if you think it's usage should be restricted, locking it behind the crafting recipe makes the most in-game sense.

You can't yet in 1.21, it's a new addition in the upcoming 1.22 release.

What actual plusses and negatives would a noble class have? My initial thoughts are largely self contradictory. A Noble would have physical advantages from growing up eating actually decent food in larger quantities than most of the populace, and would spend much more time than average doing dedicated combat training. They would likely be more knowledgeable about esoteric things technical things they may have read about. They will be better trained in social niceties and benefit from such when interacting with NPCs. A Noble would have disadvantages on many practically useful physical tasks because they simply haven't done them very much. They may be accustomed to more comfortable living conditions which are no longer available, and feel impaired by their absence. They will lack practical knowledge when it comes to most forms of foraging and agriculture, and likely have less understanding of simple tools and mechanisms that a peasant would interact with regularly. They may come across as aloof and unsympathetic to NPCs, to their detriment. Bashing those two descriptions against each other, I get speed and melee damage boosts and no penalty to ranged attacks, but a hefty penalty to foraging, crop, and animal harvests, and mining speed/yields, as well as increased hunger rates and maybe some custom craftable nicknacks or a trade bonus. Basically a pure combat class which will struggle mightily to support itself, which is about right for a warrior aristocrat cut loose from the social structure he was installed near the top of.

I'm planning to set up a LAN server on the same computer I often use to play singleplayer. How can I prevent this from happening?

Most experienced players use bronze primarily as a stepping stone to iron and then steel. This will become somewhat more difficult in 1.22 than it currently is in 1.21.6 thanks to the forge changes, but will probably remain the standard play where possible. As you've discovered, bronze can be difficult to acquire in large quantities (sometimes not, occasionally you get lucky and find a lot of tin), while iron veins are massive enough to supply you for many years and yield superior equipment to boot. The primary advantage of bronze is that it can be cast, which makes it easier to quickly turn ore chunks into useable tools. For this reason some players will use bronze as their primary axe/shovel material well into the iron or steel age. But the higher tier of iron equipment matters a fair bit more with weapons and pickaxes, and likewise few players will recommend investing large amounts of material into bronze armor if iron can be found.

You just chop down the trees with a flint axe? In game, there's no reason a wood shovel wouldn't be craftable with flint tools. The simplest implementation I can think of would be to use the existing wooden pan as the toolhead, combining with a stick to form a wooden shovel, but there are many other plausible alternatives. Out of game, wood and bone shovels predate metalworking by thousands of years.

Has the male eaten anything? As of relatively recently, males need to eat one portion in order to breed.

It exists, but not with any special bonuses (or penalties): it's called "Commoner." In the era this game is set, as well as the preceding ~5,000 years and subsequent ~500 years, the overwhelming majority of all people in existence were subsistence farmers. Farmer isn't a specialization in these societies, it's a safe default assumption for all but the affluent leisure classes, a handful of specialists, and those short-lived few so desperately poor as to be without farmable land.

That's a great question. I couldn't discern a difference in my limited testing, but it feels like there should be one, especially since the waterwheel says the number of water blocks in the tooltip. I'm sure that's intended to tell us something?

I found in my survival world that a water wheel will run three helve hammers at pretty much the same speed as one, but dropped to half speed trying to run four. I had mixed results trying to replicate this in creative, though, and sometimes it seemed like the wheel could run a quad hammer at about the same speed as a triple. A more reliable way of measuring speed/power would be useful: my fallback of counting hammer strikes per ten seconds was pretty clunky. Up-geared double waterwheel setups also exhibited this strange oscillation in speed, going faster for a few secs then slowing for a few sec and back, that I was not used to seeing for windmill power trains (or may have simply blamed on wind variation). That added to the measurement uncertainty. My guess based on limited testing is that the standard survival setup is going to be a triple hammer off a single waterwheel, or an up-geared quad hammer if you can get two water wheels in parallel.

Getting sprayed could give blurred vision and put a gross brownish yellow green tint on everything, with the effect's severity and duration proportionate to how direct a hit you got. I love the idea that NPCs avoiding and refusing to trade with a skunk-sprayed player, which could be a longer duration effect and more difficult to avoid than the blurred vision, but that alone isn't enough. Being sprayed by a skunk at close range hurts more than just your social life.

This is actually impossible on a Mac trackpad, where left and right clicks are done by one and two finger clicks respectively.

Adding on to the above, I strongly recommend this wiki page for details about exactly where ores can and cannot spawn. For example, non-surface Cassiterite will never spawn higher than y90 on a standard height world, so when digging vertical mineshafts in search of it, there's no need to even bother with pro pick node searches until you've reached that depth.

As far as popularity is concerned, I don't think it's an accident that the OP of this thread has more positive reacts than any non-Tyron post I've seen on these boards, and over twice as many reacts as the RC1 thread it was linked in. That the post managed to be this compelling and engaging despite a lot of relatively technical language says something, both about the quality of the suggestion in isolation, and the comparison with the current RNG-heavy and not all that much simpler implementation currently out in the RCs. I definitely don't want to badmouth the devs, despite the comparison. Even if they were totally bought in on this suggestion (which doesn't seem to be the case, but Tyron was at least interested enough to have a conversation), implementing it in place of the system they had already put together is surely not feasible for this release. But I am very hopeful that a mod along these lines is created soon, and highly skeptical that a straightforward implementation of what's described wouldn't be a significant improvement worthy of the base game.