Diregoldleaf

Short answer, QQQ..., TTT... etc. Long answer, it works for mixing and matching. The graph shows the multiplier for each iteration as per the c# file. Note the temper curves need to move 1 place to the right; you can see at 0, temper PG or SC is not 0 In general, for quenching, we add PG to Qnew - Qold For tempering, we multiply PG by Tnew/Told Example (QT)2Q = QTQTQ Q1-Q0 * T1/T0 + Q2-Q1 * T2/T1 + Q3-Q2 (.10 - 0.00) then * (.92 / 1.00) then + (.183333 - .10) then * (.8499 / .92) then + (25.476 - 18.333) (QT)2Q: 23.3% The sliders mean nothing, they're there for the equations

I haven't read the full paper but look at your maths you have very similar outcomes to graphs I made on desmos a while ago Black is Power Gain after Quenching, green is Power Gain after Tempering, red is Shatter Chance after tempering. There was some other stuff I did in Python to find if tempering really is useless but alas, there will be no further change so I gave up. Can't believe it's been 2 weeks already

Is this actually in the game

Yh I know, I was poking fun Nope I cannot. I'm sure Moose can

You might need to explain it for pizza lady as she finds metal side grades confusing ;D I've never understood the complexity argument against making mechanics detailed, intricate, and to some point realistic. Leather making is complex (though not to the point of full realism) and confuses the hell out of players making leather for the first time. Once you understand a complex process, complexity is never a problem. Vintage story has lead me to go down rabbit holes of many irl processes; clay forming, leather making, ore geology, alcohol brewing, cheese making and many more things. That's one of the things I like about Vintage Story, it encourages curiosity

I'm curious about these numbers. You did 1-(probability of failing) ** n = (success chance) and solving for n, where n is the number of heads needed, right? Seems correct to me

What you're saying is, I stated my idea, and your entire arguement against it is your personal opinion. I realised this a while ago when you made clear you had no intention of understanding my points and simply wanted to shout loud your own views

Everyone else has disagreed healthily without being hostile No I didn't. I said cast iron came a thousand years after wrought iron, as if to say, the first cast irons came a very long time after the the first wrought iron. Anyone can easily see what is meant here. For some reason you are so focussed on the timescale when it doesn't matter. You're missing the point, it doesn't matter if it's a thousand years or even 1 year, the statement that cast iron came after wrought iron is true. You realised your comparison of bronze to cast iron irl vs bronze to iron in VS was illogical but don't wanna admit it, so you're grasping at chances to be right. This is just childish and moving the goalpost. I will reiterate this again, arguing about the timescale of cast iron brings up no points relating to my idea. Earlier you said iron is VS has no distinction, then said it could be compared to early wrought iron, then said because of that, my idea doesn't make sense because iron is stronger than bronze. ??? You keep bringing up historical points then not using them in your arguments. Just cos the game doesn't explicitly say it's bloom/wrought iron, doesn't mean it isn't. It 100% is. We know this because iron blooms come out of bloomeries in solid form. You are arguing a completely different thing because it's been made clear you don't understand what my original idea envisioned, nor have you made any attempts to ask for clarification Again, you have no clue what I'm saying do you? You are bringing up points that fundamentally miss the point of what I said You've been misinterpreting my position the entire time, without asking me to clarify on anything. You're attacking an idea you perceived in your head, not my actual idea. You bought up history and metallurgy that in no way contribute to countering my idea. The only thing they bring is they make you seem smarter and more correct because of superficial knowledge. The Dunning kruger hill is a dangerous place to be. Having studied things like critical points, austenite martensite pearlite hollomon jaffe parameter, crystal structure of face vs body centric etc etc, I know how how complex it can get

You can argue as hard as you want, it is a universal truth that wrought iron was discovered/used before cast iron. This is ignorant on so many levels. The iron in VS is bloom iron that is wrought. Bloomeries don't get hot enough for cast iron. Cast iron has to be cast. You are taking the properties of cast iron and applying them to early wrought iron, which is why I responded with the "partially true" comment. Not sure if you did this out of ignorance or malice. I hope it's not the latter Such a simple minded thing to say. There isn't just 1 type of bronze or 1 type of iron. There are many types. Some bronze are better than some iron in some qualities, while worse in others. Thanks for comparing the weaknesses of bronze to the strengths of iron, such an unbiased and fair comparison. Your knowledge of material science is superficial All these words just to steelman what I'm saying. Not going to respond here. You came here extremely hostile, remained hostile, and you've made 0 attempt to understand what I'm saying and have consistently misunderstood things that I've said. Either you are going through some stuff or are trolling

Cast iron came a thousand years after wrought iron...

But you still go through the early iron ages, even if the technology exists, you are utilising early bloomery iron, which wouldn't be all that superior to bronze I see what you're saying, but it's less of an overlap and more of a delay. I agree with you that bronze age is now more "enjoyable" I think we are talking at cross purposes here? What I'm arguing for is a feature for the sake of realism and less-linearity, not for the sake of extending the bronze age So what I'm arguiing for isn't going to extend the bronze age at all. It'll only optionally overlap it with the iron age, giving the player the choice between iron and bronze tools. It doesn't extend the bronze age de facto, just gives you an option to stay in it if you value the power over durability of iron. Of course players wishing to advance to iron age would continue as normal. I think this wouldn't affect many people You have a very good point with the steel argument and it's defo a genuine argument against what I'm saying. The only thing I can really say is early iron would be a stepping to late iron so there's incentive to progress. For steel, there's nothing beyond that I won't read it but thanks for putting it behind spoilers. I do intend to play the story one day Alas, I was never in the mindset that this feature would be added. I enquired about it more to hear people's thoughts. There is no point debating on this topic as if it's on the fence of being added or not

Intradesting Yes that is true, but I was arguing more for your main tools >I've suggested it elsewhere myself I may have got idea from you. I've seen it floating around for a while and only recently if this has a chance to integrate into the game with the new quenching mechanics. The word side grade perfectly sums up what I was envisioning early iron, with late iron being the upgrade

I really like the idea of a durability penalty (by 30% or smth) and being removed when tempered A good excuse to add annealing and normalising

Would you say people figured it out how to work with it due to it's easy of access? Is this not in support of my arguments that late iron age should be better than bronze in terms in power, while early iron age should be a little weaker Apologies, I didn't mean it in a rude way, more in an inquisitively surprised way. I don't know what she means here as I most played caveman mode (story mode off), and haven't finished any chapters yet (waiting for 8 chapters to come out in 10 years time so I can do all of them together)

I've never had "trouble" finding iron, but I also haven't prospected many times for it so I can't argue against that. Maybe you have a point here, however, I want to point out something which I'll point out in the next paragraph Yes you have a point here again. There is definitely more time to enjoy/utilise bronze, however, the point I want to make is all of that only delays iron. It's completely 1 dimensional in the sense that it's still a linear process. I'm saying Ages don't have to be discreet, and if they overlapped with one another, it'd be much more interesting, realistic, choice-driven etc Again this is only delaying the progress and is keeping it linear. I don't see how it doesn't make sense to have a choice of 2 different metals. That's how it was in real life and to me it makes more sense that way. We all have different ways we view the game. When I first looked it VS, I assumed bronze would be better than early iron and was disappointed to find progression was exactly like minecraft I edited the original reply to say more stuff, you can check it out But are you saying gameplay doesn't start until you get to steel? The journey doesn't matter, just the destination? By that logic, why make any developments for anything before steel age?