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?

Cheap in what sense, that it's easy to cast? In that case yes, but it's not cheap in the sense that it's rarer and more difficult to obtain. You have a point with nails, cheap tools etc, but I'm talking more about your main tools, eg falx, main pick, main axe etc (the iron/steel quenchable ones). The progression feels too linear for those 1.22 only prolongs the process of iron ore to tool, which is absolutely not what I'm trying to advocate for; once you forge an iron pick, your bronze pick becomes obsolete considering iron is like 25% more powerful and lasts 2x longer. You are not really going to switch back to bronze since you're gonna wanna save that for nails etc. What I'm advocating for about is utilising bronze during early iron age. So now you get the choice of an iron tool or bronze. > but that doesn't mean that iron should just be worse than bronze unless the player puts in that extra effort It's not worse than bronze though, it still has 2x the durability. The only thing my idea would reduce is the power. I could be wrong but I don't see any progression issues; You use bronze, then unlock early iron and have the choice of powerful bronze and durable iron, finally unlock the forge/bellows and switch to iron. As for the quench thing, that's more of a "we agree on the idea, now how do we put it into practice" problem :)) I dont see it that way. I see it as us starting in stone age (ignoring the village), and making our way through the different ages. We are not constantly in the Middle Ages, only near end game do we reach it You are comparing apples to polar bears my dear. Firstly, bronze wasn't immediately replaced, it was still the preferred metal. Secondly, the Middle Ages came wayyyyy after the iron age so it doesn't make sense to compare since I am talking about early iron age here. The forge could be considered middle/late iron age which would make sense for iron to become "better" (in quotation since it is better in durability already) than bronze

It'd only confuse players at the beginning. Progression doesn't have to be a linear process like it is in the other block game, having it complex adds more depth. Once you get iron, there's such an abundance of it it makes bronze obsolete, which is already difficult to obtain. This makes bronze feel like a temporary stepping stones to iron (the same way copper feels temporary to bronze), and there's little incentive to "enjoy" the bronze age. The way I see it, once you get to a new age, it shouldn't be an immediate switch, but a gradual process. The player would have a choice of more powerful bronze, or more durable iron, When iron was first used, bronze was stronger and harder, and iron only became widespread due to it's abundance and lack of requirement to trade cassiterite as someone pointed out above. Basically iron mainly became popular because it was more economical. Wealthy people preferred bronze (also cos it was rarer) for their armour (like in the Iliad)

Since heat treatments now exist, would it make sense to make iron less powerful than bronze and buff power gain when quenching

It's let me quench it, but the stats wouldn't change

The argument against that is the whole mechanic is unrealistic anyways, and it's more fun without the limit. If you had a low, easily-obtainable limit, the meta would be to get to that limit. Regarding the slot element, it's not so much that as there's a time sink, and the cost is so high for such slow rewards (as opposed to big win). What would be your ideal improvement to the system? I agree that shattered tools should return material, but not with blacksmithing becoming tedious. It's an extremely optional mechanic with slow but firm rewards. Intradesting. I've quenched hundreds of heads, only a few first quenches, but I haven't had any of those shatter either. I can see where you guys are coming from, but I feel the same logic can be applied for the current complex quench-temper tree. Do you take the risk and quench for a quick risky reward, or do you temper and take your time, allow the tool to go back up the tree for a bigger survival chance? There's also the added benefit of adding rarity and collectibility to tools. 1. You get the choice of what to do with those returned bits. Just because there isn't a singular purpose for those bits, doesn't mean they shouldn't exist 2. Most players want their resource back regardless of whether or not there's a gameplay reason for it 3. It makes the mechanic feel more complete and polished, among many more other things There's a hard limit on quenches I believe. I couldn't quench more than 12 times consecutively (no tempers). After 1 temper, it was still 12. After 2 tempers however, it was 13. After 22 tempers, it was 18. There seems to be a lot of inconsistencies regarding this. Besides what LadyWYT said about the self inflicting problem, what you are asking is to cap the amount of time spend on this mechanic. Whether you want a cap of 3 or 7, you are essentially introducing a limit to the time spent on toolheads, whereas it should be up to the player to allocate their own time to their own tasks. Also by introducing a cap, that cap becomes the new requirement/ meta and (thinking from a factions perspective) other elements of the game will inevitably have to balance around that. With the current system, as well as the difficulty in obtaining high end quenches, the quenches are more of a bonus rather than a requirement.

Agree with everything here. On top of everything you said, it makes tools with excessively high durability into optional collectibles.

I completely agree with you here. The hard limit on tempering shouldn't exist for Power Quenching so we can have the complex and non-linear tree above. For Durability Quenching, since there's no punishment for tempering (unlike with Power Tempering where you lose Power Gain), you can temper so many times and lower the shatter chance a lot, meaning you can quench an absurd number of time without worrying about shattering, thus increasing the durability by a lot. It sounds OP to have high durability tools, but having high durability only increases convenience rather than being OP. I hope they don't introduce the tempering limit for either.

Yes, mathematically this is the best route. You are lowering the next shatter chance by 1% each time but if you do multiple in a row, it lowers by an additional 0.8% then 0.64% etc each time. Unfortunately by limiting the tempering you are forcing this linear QTQTQ gameplay

Ah I see what you are doing, thought the values were referring to the next quench shatter chance. The handbook is either wrong or the game is bugged cos atm you can there's no limit on tempering Great table again, though this is only 1 pathway through the tree. There's still the ability to do things like QQQTTTQ or QTQQTTQ, and they will have different obtainabilities and shatter chances I suspect temper limit is intended to only apply to Durability Quenching to prevent OP durability gains (though imo having absurd durability on a tool doesn't make it OP). It makes little sense to have a limit on Power Quenching considering cumulative shatter chance.

The reason for this is you can't temper an item without quenching it first