Perdido Street

Technically there is a type of armor like this called Jack Chain. It is a kind of cheap-light protection for the arms or legs (made of plate-metal, or hardened leather, splints linked via chain), typically tied/sewn onto a Gambeson or "Jack". At least in the realm of existing-metal armors, it definitely has the most "bare-bones" appearance. An interesting fact: Though there are examples of individuals wearing Jack Chains, or things like them, these only come from central Europe, and even there they were never widespread. However, 'authenticity' aside, Jack Chains are incredibly common in modern re-enactments, and for good reason, as they are cheap-functional protection against getting one's limbs broken (so, it's this odd reversal where in the past there was so much other armor circulating in the economy of Europe that soldiers could often buy or steal better protection without having to resort to Jack Chains, whereas today, when the only way your going to get metal armor is by custom ordering it, Jack Chain being the cheapest actually does translate into it being the most common). For my source - here is a discussion on the topic given by a medieval arms researcher in the UK, Matt Easton, on youtube :scholagladiatoria - What was this Medieval Armor and did it ACTUALLY EXIST?

I think that the new concept put forward is a better composition than the original logo, but also trying a bit too hard to be "charming" (like the advertisement for a cool mod, rather than a calling card of the game), to the point of losing the subtle "wrongness" that made the original design intriguing. "Rugged Whimsy, with a hint of Menace" - feels like the right tone. For some examples that I think reflect the artistic feeling I'm talking about, I found these concepts scattered throughout this thread (the first from @DarkGold and the second from @LadyWYT) The best concept for a ui/desktop Icon (imo): And the best concept for a Menu header/Brand logo (imo): For the sake of uniformity, it would be nice if they were in the same (or a more similar) style as one another, but these feel the most visually/thematically compelling and readable for those two roles (just in my opinion).

Since modularity is being looked at in the context of armor, I hope that the player inventory/bag system will also get a similar treatment eventually. In it's simplest form, bag spaces on the hot-bar could correspond to different attachment points on the model (for example: left-hip, right-hip, front, back) with an individual-button option for each to make it visible or not. Visually displaying the bags that provide the player's inventory on their character model could add a lot of customization to player appearance, just so long as it is an optional setting (after all, we always need our inventory, but might not always want the bags as part of our outfit). That alone would be a great addition, but making the most of it would also mean introducing more bag variants. I don't necessarily mean having more things like the Mining bag (though that would be nice), but more of a slight rework (really a "rephrasing") for the current inventory tier system: Instead of the first tier of bag being the "hand basket," which always has to be made out of cattails/papyrus anyway, have it be the "Woven/Grass" tier, with multiple different bag types/models within it (basket, sack, sheath, quiver, sling/bandoleer etc...), and the same advancing to the "Hide" tier, "Linen" tier, and so on like is already the case. To be clear, the number of inventory slots will remain tied to the material tier (nothing changes there from how the system is already set-up). The bag variants within each tier would be primarily aesthetic, displaying a different visual model when worn, and sometimes a relevant inventory item sticking out of it (your falx in the sheath, arrows in the quiver, spears or sticks in the sling). There could be room to have different bag variants, or attachment points, that provide advantages for preservation or specific item stacking, but, for now, the main idea would be to have more options for visual expression (not to mention find a practical way of introducing tool holsters/weapon sheaths and quivers).

Honestly, the gear crested helmets of the Skitarii (or really anything having to do with the Mechanicus in 40k) is such a vibe... one not too far off from Jonas tech

This might come a little out of left field being a grand-strategy series, but (with the exceptions of the Warhammer fantasy trilogy, and some cultural depictions in Rome 1) the historical Total War games from CA feature excellent representations of armor from across the world and different time periods. Not only are the in-game models very good, but there is a lot of art available from that studio's design process - showing both the fine details of armor models and the historical research behind it. There is an official art book available (amazon.com/Art-Total-War-Samurai-Legions/dp/1783292164), but a lot of the concept art can also be found for free online: A portfolio from Senior Concept Artist Sarah Duchiewicz - https://telthona.artstation.com/projects/za6O2?album_id=1216366; another from Artist Nikolay Toshev - nikolaytoshev.artstation.com/projects/kN4W9A; and one more from Art Director Lulu Zhang - artstation.com/artwork/0X5Dz8; -ex (a late Roman/early medieval era concept from Total War: Attila):

Maybe another approach to generation would be starting with the water-table (the underground plain at which moisture collects because it can descend no further). This, with seasonal variation, usually happens where the deepest soil layers meet bedrock *(though Aquifers -layers of porous Carbonate or Basalt rock types- can also absorb water, and Aquitards -soil rich with clay or too steeply angled- tend to resist absorption). Since terrain generation already takes into account geology + biome, it should be possible to generalize where its water table forms: in a desert chunk, for example, it would be a single block thick at bedrock level, whereas in a jungle chunk the table could be several blocks tall from bed rock. Any open air spaces that intersect the water table would fill with water (be they caves or river beds). Implementing the water table creates a basis for saying where rivers should start (a chunk with a higher water table abutting a lower elevation chunk). That wouldn't in itself solve the issue of creating realistic erosion paths or consistent volumetrics, but, assuming that (due to gravity) water always wants flow down to be, or fill up to, as close an elevation with the water-table as possible, that provides us a context (alongside knowing what materials form Aquafers vs Aquitards/Can vs can't be easily eroded) for where the river would wear a channel through the land vs where (having reached the local water-table, or erosion resistant barrier) it would spread out into a pond/lake. Going further, with the Water table's height tied to seasonal variation (temporarily up during rainy season, or down during a dry spell), it would be possible to simulate flooding and drought. There is already a water saturation mechanic for cropland, by averaging this measure at a chunk/layer level, it could even be possible to track the change in the water-table day by day as a result of rainfall + temperature. (Maybe it's a pipe-dream, but imagine seeing puddles in the ditches after a rainstorm, then watching them vanish as the saturation transfers block layer by layer down to the water table) Besides its benefit to the river generation project, the water table (specifically being able to dig down to it) is the entire basis of making wells, which would, as is the case in real life, significantly open up inland/dry-region living.

Deeper npc to player interactions are on the road map, it is just not clear yet what those will look like. Personally, I really like the suggestion of a Stardew-esque model. Maybe we can't make our own villages, but perhaps we could complete missions and resource donations to expand/develop npc locations that already exist, like the traders' outposts. For example: they could have a mission for us to...give them a certain number of logs + boards and they then build a look-out tower (a nice aesthetic reward paired with an increase to the rate at which the trader's inventory refreshes - since, narratively, the journey has become safer). Alternatively, they want seeds and some fencing, so they can build a little garden (adding that crop dependably to their trade inventory), or cobblestones and a forge to make a smithing hut (so you can purchase tool/armor repairs). These could be framed as additions to the trader's homestead, or as camp expansions for crafts-persons (like mini-traders) to come live on. That way different trader locations can be invested in by the player to tailor that relationship/market for what they need. Ideally, there would be several different kinds of modular improvements, but each camp would only have room for 1 or 2. That way the player's decisions on what to add have weight, and the system (since it relies on loading in developer-made models at predetermined connection points, rather than letting the player build in restricted areas) doesn't bloat across the line into settlement building/management (which the devs have stated they aren't interested in adding). Maybe the most out there idea that I would love to see would be having missions to connect different trader camps via roads (a continuous chain of stone paths connected to a post-box type structure in each camp) in exchange for a cumulative cost reduction on purchases or increased wares quality within the network; just to make it really feel like we are bringing the world back from ruin in a theme appropriate way for the game (by creatively re-shaping our environment through building/crafting). Even if these improvements were purely aesthetic, or only received a one time payment as compensation, Stardew Valley stands as the text-book example for how the possibility of altruism, balanced with the need for survival, can gift players another frame for filling out their personal narrative and setting: of wasteland survivors or frontier "communities;" of relationships based in neighborliness or pragmatism; if these are the seeds of a new age or the last husks of a dying one; and, most of all, whether the players engage with that setting as a backdrop, or a dynamic character, in their story. (acknowledgments to @Zero_ in the "The only major thing still missing" thread, where I originally posted this as a response, before deciding it was more of a separate suggestion)

As far as I know the developers have said that they don't intend to add player build-able villages as a base game feature; and, while I do see it as a missed opportunity, I respect their overall reasoning about maintaining a tighter focus on individual survival. Plus, they want to avoid those weirdly exploitative relationships (crossing the line into slavery) between players and villagers in games like Minecraft (which I think is more a product of the player to npc interactions being too underdeveloped as a system in that game, but that is beside the point here). - - That said, deeper npc to player interactions are on the road map, it is just not clear yet what those will look like. Personally, I really like this suggestion of a Stardew-esque model. Maybe we can't make our own villages, but we can definitely develop relationships with the NPCs by completing quests, just so long as the emphasis is on adding something new to the world through the interaction (be that dialogue options, a physical object/structure, or a modifier), and not just an arbitrary in-put for out-put of different resources. This might need a new thread to discuss, because this one here seems to be more about the relationships themselves, but I think that there is a lot of room to explore in developing NPC Locations through player investment. That, I hope, is an avenue for creating deeper interactions while respecting the dev team's vision.

The main idea here is about adding a ceramic alternative to the Barrel, but to take a brief detour into the burial topic: Yeah, given the lore in game about people going underground into bunkers, it is easy to imagine some old catacombs/tombs being repurposed for the job. Regardless, the survivors wouldn't be able to waste wood on making coffins, so the only way to deal with corpses (aside from cremation or cannibalism) would be to bury them in the floor/walls; If burial vessels were used at all, they would have to be either stone sarcophagi (solid, but large and difficult to make - which is why they historically were reserved for aristocrats) or ceramic Pithoi (space efficient, relatively cheap/easy to produce, and resistant to decay - which I would guess is the historical basis for their use as burial vessels too). I imagine that it could be pretty interesting during a play-through to knock on the walls of a ruin and find a burial niche behind it, or be out digging in the fields only to find a Pithoi submerged in the ground. These types of burial sites often included offerings, and finding an idol, a rusted piece of armor, or gold coins alongside the bones would tell a little story by itself (in addition to providing useful goods for the player). That, or it could just be empty. Look anywhere that humans have lived for a long period and you will find pottery shards. Settlement Mounds are the archaeological term for the masses of ceramic, old buildings, and biological remains from human settlements building over each other for millennia (ex: all the different layers of Troy).

Ancient Romans used barrel sized ceramic containers called Dolium, or Dolia plural, (usually buried up to the rim in the foundations of rural villas) as storage, and particularly for fermentation. Having an earlier game version of the barrel (with its uses for liquid storage, fermentation, and especially for making compost) would be nice, and could be balanced by having less overall efficiency. Also, not the main point here, but Dolium would make a fine addition to ruins; especially considering their secondary use as a method of burial (called Pithoi in that context). The hidden content here isn't actually a spoiler - it is an image of an excavated Pithoi with a skeleton inside (I don't know if that would be distressing to some people, it is ancient, so decide for yourself).

Here is where I have to disagree, there are definitely ways of creating distinctions between different kinds of chainmail using color and texture, even with only pixels to work with. Light mail - take the Minecraft approach of having some gaps (albeit smaller/more form fitting ones), or else make it slightly translucent. After all, it's light chain, not solid plate, the color of what's underneath is going to come through. Medium mail - pretty much leave the model as is for this one Heavy mail - either make the model overall a bit thicker looking, or else add a slight 3D projection on alternating voxels to convey material depth. Everything from clothing sets, belts, jewelry, and even hair already use this type of texturing, and to great affect If you want to make it even more readable then, like you said, throw in different hem shapes (irregular or with torn links - to convey airy-ness for light mail, triangular trim - to show balanced craftsmanship on medium mail, straight or with square trim - to convey unyielding-ness for heavy mail). I think that the methods I have listed above are sufficient to create visual distinction between chain-mail types, and are doable with tools already available to the game. To give an example of the visual progression, from Light to Medium to Heavy: --> -->

I absolutely agree, which is why I believe that the different chain-mails I suggest (just one Light, Medium, and Heavy variant as a simplified representation of the real world spectrum of mail styles) would add depth + more tools for visual expression, without getting too convoluted: I know that the plate layer is going to be the main star of the show in this system, but I hope that at least some attention is given to how different variants of mail or padding can be made, and layered to affect the protectiveness, overall production/maintenance cost, and weight of armor sets; whether players want to build specialized kit for speed, cheapness, or pure strength, in addition to the more aesthetic concerns.

Having the option to make different variants of chain mail -heavy, medium, or light- could be nice (especially for the whole "making do with what we have" part of the system). The term "Ringmail" is somewhat anachronistic, but it does convey how the size of the individual links, or the tightness of their weave, were reflective of culture and the local availability of metal: For more specific examples, weave variants in real-life tend to be named for the density of links (# of overlaps per 1 link -ex: "4-in-1," means each link has 4 others attached to it), or their cultural style: -PS: For those who are curious, Gauge just refers to the thickness/diameter of the links in millimeters (its a standardized measurement system for wire; long story short, just read that the lower the "# ga" the thicker the link, wheres the higher the "# ga" the larger the link). A 4-in-1 (light) suit of chain mail would be much cheaper to make, and weigh-less to wear, than a 6-in-1 (medium) or 8-in-1 (heavy), but also be less protective/visually solid.

Now that armor is getting reworked, this thread feels worth resurrecting. I think the basis on which it began (not that combat needs to be expanded, but that it is in a weird place currently) remains true, and should be addressed. For the record, more armor content is exciting and I am all for it; the cosmetics and modular design are going to be fantastic, I am sure. However, armor is inherently linked to the combat system. Having more armor content, like having more dungeon content, creates its own gravitational incentive to engage with it (after all, the player mentality, whether right or wrong, is going to be to "follow the content" - the sense that it is not just something they can do, but is what they are supposed to do). The making of weapons and armor was already the most interesting part of combat, and it is good to see that side of things continue to deepen, but that will also emphasize, even more, how much less engaging it is to actually use what we make. Once again, so people don't get me wrong, I am not saying that VS should have Dark Souls level fighting mechanics - I am saying that the amount of effort we invest in preparing for something (making weapons and armor) should balance out with how engaging that thing actually is (resolving combat encounters): that could mean deeper fighting mechanics, or deeper stealth mechanics, or deeper movement mechanics, just anything so long as it expands player agency during the encounter. Ultimately, I hope that material progress in arms and armor will become less about percentages, and more about possibilities (think about the difference that getting the pickaxe tiers make, or the saw, or the bloomery - its not just a higher number or nicer model, its a new relationship with the sandbox). More build-able traps/emplacements would be a good start.

Being able to make hallucinogenic blow darts/arrows could be handy for catching wild animals, or messing with your friends