MKMoose

Quite a lot of people have had problems. It's a known issue, #9175.

Seems like it might be a known bug, #4181.

Seems like a bug more than an intentional limitation of spur gears, especially since it worked as expected for me. Most likely related to #9391, possibly also to #8349 or #9596.

It's entirely plausible, and actually quite likely if the continent is relatively small. While you do seem like you're aware of at least the basics, I want to note a couple things just to be sure if you need tips on searching for borax: Sometimes random generation just does its thing. If you've roughly prospected in all areas which can generate borax but got no readings for it, then it's safe to assume you need to look for it elsewhere.

Besides durability, higher-tier knives have a couple advantages: higher plant harvesting speed (e.g. a stone knife has 1.0x, tin bronze has 1.8x, steel has 2.4x) - doesn't matter all that much given that the axe and scythe are usually better for mass-harvesting of plants, but can be very useful occasionally, hidden bonus to entity harvesting speed (equal to half the plant harvesting speed bonus, e.g. a stone knife has 1.0x, tin bronze has 1.4x, steel has 1.7x) - arguably the most important bonus of these, given that the knife is the only tool used to harvest animals or monsters, significantly higher damage (e.g. a stone knife has 0.8, tin bronze has 2.5, steel has 4.0) - usually irrelevant if you have a proper spear or falx on yourself, but might occasionally help out in a pinch.

Poisoning with a stew generously prepared by a friend is a strong contender for me. My favorite, though, is accidentally picking up the rope ladder too fast while leaving a mineshaft. Genuinely haven't died to anything more than that.

The most important parts of this are implemented in EntityBehaviorHarvestable. I don't have the assets on hand to check, but I'd imagine based on what I'm reading in the code that you'd need to add a deathByMultiplier in the mod's files for tamed wolves (or just modify the value if it's already defined).

This part specifically, I don't really like, because realisticaly most animals still generally won't pursue. Just to give some context: even for relatively dangerous animals like bears, easily thousands of minor encounters with humans can occur for every human death. For some animals, there are virtually no recorded deaths from animal attacks, or if there are then they can often be estimated to land in the ranges of one human death per millions of encounters. Attacks are often warned about and studied, and for good reason because the risk is very much there especially if certain risk factors are met, but the actual danger is often quite overemphasized. You can take a look at statistics regarding, for example, bear encounters and attacks in national parks compared to the number of annual visitors. Yes, with the caveat that skipping formalities should be specifically triggered when the player approaches very quickly or otherwise disrupts the animal (kind of like boars do currently where they will run away when approached slowly, but attack when the player gets too close, though the ranges could probably be tweaked and they still give little to no warning). I think it really should give a distinct "you've made a mistake" or "you've been careless" feel, not just be random and unpredictable. That applies even for many predators. And it's also probably worth noting that animals can actually become unusually dangerous in some often overlooked situations like during the mating season (if the devs decide to introduce something like this, then that would warrant taking overall aggression down a notch but bumping it up at appropriate times) or when caused by disease or other pathology (if implemented, then ideally in a way that allows the player to actually see and hear that something is wrong with the animal before it attacks). Overall that could be argued to be included in the "warn the player appropriately" phrase, but fair enough, it is an important thing to keep in mind.

One problem with pure persistence hunting is that, as far as we know, it wasn't really a significant hunting method ever since humans figured out that throwing a pointy stick at the animal makes it much easier to track and catch up to. Humans' superior endurance and more developed sweating can be beneficial in hunting, which has even been documented in relatively modern times in some tribes in Africa (which has some biomes especially suited for getting animals to the point of heat exhaustion), but it's just one hunting method. Why not trapping, stalking, drive hunting? Another problem with persistence hunting is that I frankly feel like it would be really quite boring and one-dimensional in gameplay. Well-developed hunting mechanics tend to involve multiple stages like observation, stalking, making the shot and tracking, with each stage asking different gear, skills and strategies of the player. Persistence hunting kind of devolves to just running for extended periods of time, and it's also largely devoid of gameplay progression. If the animal is easy to keep track of, then it's just tedious. If the animal is difficult to keep track of, then it becomes unreliable and frustrating. Striking the right balance feels borderline impossible when you have a lot of players at different levels. Some sort of endurance system for animals can be a fun addition, but I personally feel like endurance should only matter when injured. This way it doesn't reward rather uncreative activities like chasing an animal for a long period of time, instead strongly pointing towards stalking and ambushing to injure the animal as the optimal way to slow it down first while still leaving the tracking aspect as an important part of the process. I think it would just be a better system in almost every way over simply allowing the player to tire out a healthy animal. And if you specifically want a way to chase animals, then it might be better to lean into pit trapping and drive hunting, rather than simple persistence hunting - both, assuming they're implemented well, would arguably be much more engaging and rewarding due to the layer of strategy and adaptation (finding a good spot, preparing the area, directing the animals towards that location) which persistence hunting largely lacks. Frankly, I really feel like this cannot be reasonably fixed in any other way than just reworking animal behavior to be more involved and actually kind of realistic, rather than what for real animals would just be considered pathological. A bear shouldn't chase you until the end of the world. It could as well be twice as fast in full sprint for what I care, as long as it's more defensive, so it warns the player appropriately before attacking and relents quickly unless pestered repeatedly - what makes it really questionable currently is that it's hostile in the exact same way as the rust monsters. Wolves should avoid the player most of the time, but give them a run for their money when they hear a hunting pack in the middle of a forest. And once you address their heatseeking behavior, then what you do with their endurance no longer has backhanded balance implications that make designing the game into whack-a-mole with obvious and predictable problems popping up after any significant change.

Chiseling down a failed workpiece makes bits. For everything besides steel this serves as a way of retrieving all the metal after a mistake, with the exception of pieces which had more than one ingot added.

You can do it perfectly fine. You just need to make sure that they work in tandem rather than counteract each other.

Just to clarify, because I realize now that it can be interpreted in various ways: by "initial growth time" I mean growth from cutting to young bush (2-4 months) which can be gamed to consistently get close to 2 months, but then the maturation stage (2-4 months again) can't be cheesed the same way. You can reduce the total growth and maturation time in months from 4-8 (6 on average) to 4-6 (5 on average), and the fruiting cycle then also takes on average 2.5 months regardless. So it's not all that impactful. A very similar way to game the growth time randomness has always been a thing with with tree saplings, by the way.

The things that are actually working as intended are closed and labeled with "status: wontfix". There have been plenty of reports regarding, for example, clothing balance, which could easily be said to be "working as designed" and yet were not even labeled as suggestions. Do note that the standard procedure towards issues labeled as suggestions is to close them, which is why I was pointing out my issue not being closed despite getting the label as unusual. Also, it's not like a GitHub issue being both a bug report and a suggestion would be a paradox, you know. And ultimately, when the way the game "working as designed" allows to objectively show that large windmills are flat-out worse than regular windmills in nearly every aspect, then I think it's also fair to call it a bug.

More on the historical inspiration side of things, for something simple, a log cabin in the Norwegian Museum of Cultural History - bonus points if you add a sauna to something like this: For something larger, Schronisko Murowaniec (Murowaniec shelter) in the Polish Tatras (admittedly relatively modern and probably overkill in size, but fits the aesthetics and block palette of VS quite well): For something further back in time, a Bronze Age house drawing that I could find here, for when you want to torture yourself with getting all that thatch: If you're not sure what to do, I cannot recommend anything more than to start small with easy shapes, and try to prioritize variety and small decorations to spice things up: a different roof material here, a different floor there, a fence to lead the eyes between two things, a path to the lake and a small pier on it (maybe it will even be good enough for fishing), a few hay bales next to the farm, a stack of firewood on the side of the house, some flower pots next to the door, a few berry bushes under a boring wall, a table and chair with some bookshelves on the inside to keep cozy. If you only start off from a small hut, then adding on a second building for the forge, or a granary, or a hut for storage crates, is a fairly simple, step-by-step process, and can produce a neat little village of its own. Integrating a lot of things into one huge building, on the other hand, and decorating it all in a cohesive way, especially with the resource scarcity that VS sometimes likes to hit you with, is very hard and time-consuming even if rewarding. If you're relatively new, it's also impossible to really predict how much of that space you're actually going to need. I personally spend almost all of my time in houses that don't exceed a roughly 5x10 footprint on the inside, and even that tends to be large - my first house was a 2-floor 5x7 with a cellar plus an outdoor forge with some storage crates, which carried me through a 200+ hour world with no major issues.

Realistically? Not really, real windmills should be placed further apart than that, especially in the direction parallel to the direction of wind. In terms of consistency? Small windmills use the same system, and both need 1.5x radius, so I don't see issues there (although there are some caveats regarding the possibility of cheesing the system). But balance-wise? The whole large windmills are underwhelming, to the point that I opened a bug report which was promptly labeled with "status: suggestion" by one of the devs but also given "priority: medium" by another, and it wasn't closed. Your two large windmills, even if they weren't cut short by turbulence, would produce the power equivalent of five small windmills (for context, a small windmill should give 100 kN) while costing the flax equivalent of eight of them, and 24 iron as well. Reduced in size to avoid turbulence, they give the power equivalent of four small windmills at the flax equivalent of 6.4 of them.