MKMoose

All nutrients - recovery is completely paused while a crop is growing. I'm frankly unsure whether it's an intentional change, but that's what it is right now, and it's arguably better from a design perspective, even if not ideal. Once the crop ripens, recovery resumes again, though at a much slower rate for the nutrient preferred by the crop.

The changelog mentions two changes separately: I don't really know what is what here, but there seems to have been another change as well: farmland no longer recovers nutrients while crops are growing on it. It used to be that farmland would stop recovering nutrients when it had a ripe crop on it, apparently. Now this was changed to where farmland seems to only recover nutrients when empty or when it has a ripe crop on it. Both before and after the update nutrient recovery is significantly slower for the nutrient preferred by the currently planted crop. Based on a quick test, flax planted in medium fertility soil used to take ~2.5 months and leave the farmland at ~15 K (~35 K net uptake) at the time it finishes growing, whereas now it seems to take ~3.5 months and leave the soil at 0 K (50 uptake). I do generally like the change for the most part, or at least the general direction, because it used to be quite easy to outright ignore the nutrient levels and still have almost zero issues with farming, whereas now fertilizing, crop rotation and better soils are much more useful. That said, especially combined with the yield reduction for grains, this is a very significant nerf that will in all likelihood just cause people to build even larger farms than they used to make. If they want to address farming being nearly free food, then the current plant-and-forget cycle should also be changed in some way, instead of just making everything slower and less efficient. Few methods would achieve this nearly as effectively as requiring more care and maintenance for optimal growth.

I don't like this, and I think I'm gonna gloss over it for my own good. As much as I agree with this, I feel like berry bushes are quite literally the only food source currently in the game where this is unnecessary if not harmful from the perspective of game balance and pacing. I'd argue that berry bushes should be limited by low satiety (I personally see no significant issue with just nuking it down to 40), seasonal availability window (different for different species), and being very labor-intensive to collect (in part because of the low satiety). They could actually take much more optional maintenance than they do now to make very good bushes, but then that would explicitly be a small high-effort garden that the player voluntarily chooses to maintain instead of a massive plantation. And that optional effort should go into alleviating some of the drawbacks of wild bushes like short availability window and labor-intensive harvesting, instead of just being a boost to yield which the player can nearly just as well get by simply planting more bushes. The new bushes require seemingly some of the most complex texture work that the game has seen so far with dozens of individual textures per bush, so I'm wondering whether they even manage to fit all the new fruit types into the update, let alone a second set of new textures that pruning would almost certainly require (unless they use some clever masking, but the results of that most likely wouldn't look as good, and would still have to be tailored for every bush individually). I'm not quite sure where the idea of swapping fertilizer to pruning even comes from, though I can agree that just swapping it would be a pretty ill-advised idea. That said, removing the fertilizer requirement (just the requirement via the "barren" state, not the rest of the bush health system) would change almost nothing in the current balance. Well, at least as long as the arbitrary medium fertility soil requirement remains in place and bushes aren't adjusted to consume nutrients during initial growth. Pruning as a way of getting new traits onto bushes does seem like an interesting idea from a gameplay perspective, though at which point would new traits be applied? It seems to me like a better way to implement creating new traits may be to just make cuttings occasionally gain or lose traits when planted. Granted, it may end up a bit annoying to have some outliers with additional or missing traits in the middle of a berry plantation.

From what I can find, huge eurasian pigs can interbreed with the regular ones (though not with the other species that spawn in warm climates). The baby will always grow into a regular variant - the huge ones can only be found in the wild.

It's only once per year for bone meal, and about once every ~2 years for other types of fertilizer. That's in the first couple year, and it falls off over time. I actually don't know whether this change (nutrient consumption being reduced over time) was planned from the start, or added in as a quick solution to the initial heated reaction. In the current balance, fertilizing isn't even necessary for short-term worlds, up to ~2 years. They ripen usually twice per year now, which is a bit more better than up to three times (assuming temperate climate). I've been also arguing for only one seasonal harvest and some changes similar to what you're mentioning, and Pizza (one of the devs) has responded that the hope is to eventually make all plant life seasonal, even flowers. Naturally, that will take some time, but it is a pretty neat goal to aim for. Berries being somewhat OP in the early game has actually been probably the single biggest argument in support of these changes. My opinion is that this wasn't really a problem in the first place and should have been addressed differently (cuttings and a seasonal growth cycle would have nerfed them plenty - no real need to tack on much beyond that in terms of balance), but it is undeniable that it has been solved one way or another with this rework. I've never understood this point. Surely, if the problem is "too many bones", then we could just add a whole range of interesting and historically accurate uses for them? Bone meal apparently hasn't been a recognized thing until the 17th century, whereas bone broth, bone glue and a whole host of products of bone carving have seen significant use since prehistoric times.

What actually has changed A description and mini-guide to the changes. Most of this information you can roughly get from the handbook. Includes a couple potential objective issues, especially those which are unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. 1. Reworked visuals. Generally speaking: no longer a cube, more detailed, more realistic and more varied. Ripe fruit can be more difficult to notice, especially on struggling bushes. They can't be pruned anymore, but returning this functionality would likely require a lot of additional texture work on top of what the devs have already taken on with several new fruit types alongside the reworked ones. 2. New species. As of initially writing this, strawberry and beautyberry had been added. In 1.22.0-rc.7, cloudberry, raspberry and blackberry have been added. Five more new fruit types were initially added, but not introduced in 1.22 - I don't know when they are going to be added, and I'm unsure whether all of them are going to be implemented as fruiting bushes, as three may realistically fit better as fruit trees. 3. Cuttings. Bushes now drop a few pieces of plant debris when broken, only useful for rot. In order to propagate the bushes, cuttings have to be taken from them using a knife and planted in soil, and they take a few months until they grow into a proper bush. They grow in two stages, from cutting to a young bush, then from young to a mature bush. The exact time is currently 6 +/- 2 months initial growth, so 8.5 +/- 2.3 months until the first harvest (sum of cutting growth, bush maturation and the first fruiting cycle), and it's lengthened further as it is slowed down by cold temperatures. It's long enough that it will be impossible to get any significant berry harvest from cultivated bushes in Year 0 before winter hits, and even Year 1 berries may be pretty tough. A cutting can be taken from a bush only once per year, though it's currently possible to take a cutting from a young bush (after just three months from planting on average), which greatly accelerates propagation. A cutting has to be planted within 15 days of obtaining it. 4. Adjusted growth cycle. I'll skip an exact description, but the most important practical differences include: extended growth time from empty to ripe bush (2 => 2.5 months), shortened growth window (they take longer to start growing again after the winter) and shortened ripe duration (4 => 1 month). Overall, it seems impractical in temperate climates to harvest berries more than twice per year, and in slightly colder climates you will be limited to just one harvest per year. A greenhouse can be used to slightly extend the growing window and hopefully get one extra harvest, but the effect may not be reliable enough to bother. Different species have very slightly different parameters. Also, starting from rc.6, bushes require sunlight to grow. 5. Bush health and fertilizer usage. Bushes planted from a cutting now require fertilizer to maintain good health. A bush has four possible states, depending on its average nutrient level: - 80-100% nutrients => “bountiful” - produces 50% more fruit, - 30-80% nutrients => “healthy” - default state, - 10-30% nutrients => “struggling” - produces 50% less fruit, - 0-10% average nutrients => “barren” - doesn't produce any fruit at all. This does not affect wild bushes - wild ones start off randomly either "struggling" or "healthy" and stay in that state indefnitely (and can't be fertilized). Bushes planted from cuttings start off from an amount of nutrients determined by the soil they are planted on (the same level as for farmland), and then they consume a portion of nutrients every time the fruit ripens (an equal amount of all three nutrients, more is consumed when the bush is more healthy). The nutrient consumption falls off slowly over time, becoming almost negligible after ~15 years and very nearly zero after ~25 years. The amount of fertilizer you need to use and how early you have to use it after planting depends on the soil you use (and it’s practically the only effect that soil ends up having on the bush). Assuming the bush ripens twice per year (in climates on the warmer side of temperate): For low fertility soil, the bush will start off in the "struggling" state, so you're generally gonna prefer to fertilize it immediately or just plant in better soil. For medium fertility soil, you will generally want to add at least one piece of fertilizer after about two years from planting the bush, and then some more within the next couple years. Most players won’t generally need to use more than ~4 portions per bush in a typical multi-year playthrough, or a bit more up-front if trying to keep them "bountiful". In the extreme, ~10 portions in total over up to ~10 years are required to bring a bush to the “bountiful” state immediately and maintain it indefinitely. Strawberries and cloudberries are exceptions, since they have halved yield and halved nutrient uptake, which makes them frankly just worse in almost all contexts. It is currently possible and in certain cases optimal to sustain the bushes only on one nutrient and not all three, which seems like an exploit but I don’t know when and how it will get patched, if at all. If it ripens only once, you will need much less fertilizer. 6. Fertilizer requirement specifically (the “barren” state). A bush which falls below 10% average nutrient levels will enter the “barren” state, in which it no longer bears fruit and has to be fertilized to produce again. For medium fertility soil, if the bush doesn’t get fertilized initially, assuming the bush ripens twice per year, it will happen after ~8 years, I think, if I didn't miscalculate something, which is borderline irrelevant for the average player - it's often entirely possible to just skip fertilization altogether, and you might just be collecting half-yield bushes. Fertilizing the bush planted in medium fertility just a tiny bit makes it impossible for the nutrient levels to fall to “barren” - they will stay “struggling” or better forever. I've separated this from bush health as a distinct feature, if only because it was initially very controversial and I wanted to see separate sentiments for fertilization in general, and specifically the requirement to fertilize lest the bush stop producing fruit. 7. Medium soil fertility requirement. A cutting can only be planted on medium fertility soil and above. As of rc.6, this has been removed. Keep in mind they will start off "struggling" in low fertility and require fertilizer more quickly, while on barren soil they won't produce any fruit at all unless fertilized. 8. Traits. Some bushes can have a few small effects applied to them, which can be either negative or positive. Increased/reduced yield, nutrient uptake, harvest speed, ripe duration. Those traits persist when bushes are propagated through cuttings, which means that you can find a really good bush with multiple good traits and propagate it out into a large farm. However, new traits cannot be created by propagating bushes - you have to find good wild bushes and propagate them. Cuttings with different traits don’t stack, which can take up a lot of inventory space quickly. 9. General balance as a food source. Mainly influenced by the adjusted growth cycle, as well as by a 20% drop rate increase relative to 1.21 (4.4 => 5.5 berries per healthy bush). Wild bushes are significantly less reliable than they used to be, especially for people who may struggle to notice them now, but purely numbers-wise as well. Cultivated bushes can be arguably better than they used to be, especially when considering traits, but require more time to properly set up and some fertilizer to keep them healthy. The initial growth time is long enough that it seems impractical if not impossible to get a sizable quantity of bushes fast enough to fruit within Year 0 at default world configuration. Remember that farming has received some nerfs in 1.22 as well, which makes this comparison a bit less straightforward. Now that 1.22 stable has been released, I may no longer update this post, though feel free to tell me if you have any corrections. The poll itself will probably stay open. A summary of sorts for the poll, alongside some of my opinions and feedback, can be found in this comment: Motivation for this post When discussing the rework, I’ve frequently seen perfectly fine changes being complained about with completely incorrect assumptions about their effects, and a couple times I've even seen literally nonexistent changes being complained about. I’ve also seen the rework uncritically praised with no apparent attempt to even consider criticism of it as potentially valid. Of a few relatively popular videos I've looked at to gauge people's sentiment shortly after the rework was revealed, every single one included only surface-level coverage, used flawed testing methods, neglected many details, and even included baseless conjecture or plainly incorrect information in one or two cases. On the whole, player familiarity with the rework is low despite many reactions being heated, because many people predominantly react off of vibes, expectations, unverified interpretation of the changelog, and word of mouth. Many people supportive of the rework aren't even familiar with the details of what has been changed, and even fewer still actually know which parts are predominantly being criticized. Similarly, a lot of the people critical of the rework are grossly overreacting to the fertilization requirement and a couple other details without actually analyzing the gameplay impact of all the changes, which easily drives a feedback loop where two sides fuel each other's emotions and entrench themselves in opposing positions. Productive discussion has been quite rare to see, which is kind of both expected and disappointing. A lot of that reaction could have been prevented by designing the rework differently to avoid hitting obvious triggers like the fertilizer requirement, or by communicating the changes more clearly in the changelog. Personally, while my initial reactions to the rework were admittedly somewhat rushed, I generally argue knowing the code and full extent of the changes. The most positive broad take I can muster is as follows: the design direction is fine even if not what I would prefer, but the execution has some problems. Certain changes are quite universally welcomed, but there are certain components of the new system, intentional or not, which should still be revised or improved, if not removed. Two of them (soil downgrading and medium fertility requirement) have been rolled back.

I've edited the suggestion somewhat after a chat with Tyron over on Discord, and I've mentioned your concern as well in a new section of the post. Feel free to tell me if this is a satisfactory response, and whether you think that some specific mechanics go over the line especially far: I think Tyron has said that adding a config for something like this could be a suitable short-term solution. I don't think resorting to a config is a good idea, but sure, it could be nice for those who don't want excess complexity.

Bismuth/tin/black bronze should be workable at 425/475/510 C, which is lower than copper's 542 C. All of them are workable quite fine even with brown coal and no bellows. The fuel type is only really a matter of convenience for working iron and steel as well as requirement to melt nickel, but keep in mind that converting coal to coke also greatly reduces its effective burn duration in all contexts.

Something like one piece every 2 years at first, a bit more if using bone meal. It falls off over time, eventually becoming completely negligible in long-term worlds. It reaches 600 C normally (700 base value - 100 brown coal modifier = 600), and with bellows it's more than you will need (985.7 C, if I recall correctly), though you will need to use the bellows much more than with other fuel types.

Oh, it feels like young bushes should be functional now, if I'm reading the code correctly. It would be amazing, though if that is theb case, then I can't wait for people to notice that the growth time is three months longer, unless that was changed as well. So many things to check out and be excited about. And I am so glad. Though I don't know how to feel about fertilization seemingly becoming almost irrelevant again.

Great question. There is no answer, only guessing and conjecture. Fertilize it. Any fertilizer works. About one piece per year for the first four years will generally work well enough. Nutrient consumption falls off over time, so you won't have to keep fertilizing in long-term worlds. It's currently strictly optimal to only use one fertilizer type per bush, or two if you want to keep it in the "bountiful" state. Update: with rc.3 now released, soil doesn't get downgraded, and it seems that medium fertility soil will get bushes to start off in the "healthy" state at 50% nutrients, greatly reducing the need to fertilize the bushes.

Does the issue appear at all times while below Y = 128, or does it flicker in and out in some way? While you're standing in or behind certain blocks like crops or fences, perhaps? Either way, the most likely cause is probably the Immersive Mouse Mode. If disabling IMM doesn't fix it (or if you don't have it enabled in the first place), then you can see if the issue still persists after disabling occlusion culling altogether (possibly at some cost to performance). Might be a prime candidate for a bug report.

While holding the item in hand, use: /debug heldtemp <temperature> The temperature value has to be an integer in degrees Celcius, e.g. /debug heldtemp 820 if you want to set it just above the minimum quenching temperature.

It would seem that there is a 5% shatter chance on first quenching. I've found that there should be based on the code and by modifying item attributes, but wasn't able to fully confirm it myself by getting it to happen in spite of having made a couple dozen quenched items.

I did kinda mention that I think passive regression to the wild state would likely be undesirable, since it would impose maintenance when using meadows for their decorative purpose: Having thought about it a bit, I feel like a machete may be the best solution for this, as a dedicated tool for quick but destructive foliage removal. Or just the axe, which currently readily serves a similar function due to a very high plant mining speed multiplier. A machete would also be a natural fit for thorny shrubberies, jungle thickets and similar environments, especially if naturally regrowing or spreading bushes and similar dynamic flora mechanics ever get added.

This has apparently been changed to make the tempering process less tedious. A fix to a problem that shouldn't exist in the first place, if you ask me, but anyways. I think the best way to improve it, possibly alongside the change mentioned above by @LadyWYT, would be to make the cooling rate vary in different containers as well - it's only natural that a firepit should retain its temperature much longer than a flat piece of metal exposed to air.

You need to take the jug with your cursor and RMB while hovering over the glue in the pot's UI. Also, it can't be modified with shift, I misremembered that.

It is a known issue of sorts, which has been in the game for a long time, and it's caused by the pot technically not being a container. When picked up it drops the items inside, but since liquids can't just be dropped like regular items, they get spilled. You can take the glue out of the pot using any liquid container, that is a bowl, a jug or a bucket, using RMB.

As a small preface, the current implementation seems to still be very much a work-in-progress despite it being already a release candidate, though I'm not seeing any reason to expect significant gameplay changes (only visual improvements and new species are really likely), and I wouldn't expect pruning to be added anytime soon unless they find a quick way to create visually satisfactory models for the pruned bushes without the need to nearly double the required texture work. Fair enough, I can mostly see this, though I feel like pruning would probably be quite different from the current fertilizing (I'd expect it to be a regular, annual thing, and it probably shouldn't get less impactful over time). And while I can't disagree that fertilizer can boost yields often quite significantly, the point about outright requiring it being unrealistic still generally stands. It's much more generous than this, and the upfront cost is disproportionately high since nutrients only start at 25% if planted on medium fertility. And it's especially generous due to the current (possibly to-be-patched) ability to maintain a bush on one or two nutrients while the rest is at zero. After ~5-10+ years the nutrient consumption is extremely low already, and after ~15-20 years the it is effectively paused. And it's also halved for strawberries. Each trait has an independent 15% chance to be applied (which gives an ~52% chance for a bush to have at least one trait). If a trait does get applied, then it has a 40% chance to be positive. It's just that berries stay on the bush in the "ripe" stage for a longer or shorter time. I'd say it's a borderline pointless trait - even clustered berries can be neat by speeding up the time it takes to harvest a large farm, but extended ripe time has absolutely no effect unless the berries are left on the bush to decay on their own. This is largely consistent with what I said, so I'm honestly not sure what you're disagreeing with. The impact of traits on wild bushes in early-game gathering is paractically negligible, because the expected effect is very close to net zero. People probably don't want to collect bushes with negative traits, which will result in fewer total bushes, even if the average quality of collected cuttings is higher. The effects of traits on cultivated bushes can be fairly neat, but it's gonna take time to propagate them, making them mostly a late-game benefit. My main argument regarding traits, besides unstackable cuttings, was something along the lines of "it introduces unnecessary complexity in the early game where complexity can easily be undesirable, while simultaneously offering very little benefit for the player until the late game". I haven't noticed almost any complaints about this, though it might be because I don't play on large servers myself so I may not be paying as much attention to them. That said, I don't think it's a significant issue in the current balance - the fertilization requirement is so low that past some initial setup cost there will be basically no maintenance on long-running servers. Aye, I'm glad we can at least agree on this stuff, because I would argue that these two changes are easily the worst (or at least most unnecessary) parts of the rework, while traits and the fertilization requirement at least have a slightly clearer purpose. Tying growth speed to higher fertility soil could end up more inconsistent in some capacity, because crop growth speed is tied to nutrient and water levels and not to soil type. I feel like the simpler solution would be to just make nutrients slowly replenish back up to the default level like they do for crops, with some constraints or other adjustments to keep everything neat and purposeful, so that different tiers of soil would allow a bush to stay at different health levels with no long-term maintenance.

There, I tried. And I appreciate it. To be honest, I'm getting tired of these discussions myself in some capacity. It feels like no matter what people say, a large portion of the pushback to criticisms of the rework fundamentally misses the entire point of what it's directly responding to, and a lot can easily feel outright rooted in unwillingness or incapability to take words for what they are. That's not directed at you, to be clear, I'm mostly talking about some impressions I got on Discord here. An infuriatingly common sentiment is just a number of variations on "the changes are good", which, to be clear, is completely acceptable as standalone feedback, but seems rather questionable to me when it's a direct response to criticisms. It's also in no way exclusive with the argument that certain parts of the rework are a net negative in spite of the overall direction being solid. I think I'm gonna put this in a more space-efficient spoiler box. The differences between different species is something that does seem like it should be implemented sooner or later, and I think I've seen some JSON work to that end in the game assets. Strawberries are already a bit different from other bushes. Bushes spreading dynamically would be pretty neat, and I would love it if new bushes could spread onto burned land especially, since certain berries are very fast pioneer plants (meaning that which readily colonize disturbed environments) and it has apparently been used historically to promote berry growth as sort of radical way of berry cultivation. I also recall @williams_482 mentioning that bushes could consume nutrients from adjacent tiles as well. I didn't really like it for all bushes, but I think would actually be a very neat and realistic way to distinguish currants and certain other larger fruiting bushes that may prefer more space from the smaller ones that grow into denser thickets and carpets. Applying a similar effect to fruit trees would also make sense.

Problem The current mechanic is entirely binary - either a windmill is affected by the turbulence or not - which means that different kinds of mistakes or attempts to game the system are punished equally, which ends up wildly disproportionate to their severity: a player unaware of the exact mechanics and ranges may easily happen to slightly underestimate the required distance between windmills and end up with no power gain until they relocate the windmill (or reduce its size), or even reduced total power if the new windmill affects multiple other windmills, placing windmills even one block too close as a result of forgetfulness, miscalculation or aesthetic reasons is punished in the exact same way as intentionally placing them so close that the sails visually hit each other, placing two windmills close to each other is punished in the exact same way as cramming many windmills in a small space (e.g. in an optmized 4 x N windmill). Main suggestion The main way to address these issues is to make turbulence scale with distance (the simplest way is linear, the theoretically ideal way may be gaussian, a good compromise is probably cosine or a polynomial approximate of gaussian) and scale with the number of windmills (possibly just stacked multiplicatively from each windmill, but some different relationship could be better). Additional ideas In no particular order: increase the turbulence range along the axis of rotation and reduce it otherwise, to incentivize side-by-side windmills instead of just any haphazard placement as long as it's far enough from each other, make turbulence update for a rotor right as sails are added to it, and remove the randomness from the automatic update.

Possibly because they're ridden with a variety of problems. Falling blocks phasing through other blocks and disappearing entirely in certain cases. Simple and easily exploitable rules that incentivize rigid patterns and certain cheesy strategies. Damaging the landscape. Among other things.

Mainly because damage is heavily affected by breakpoints (e.g. the 5 damage breakpoint is extremely valuable for ferrous spears). Even when breakpoints are so high that they barely matter, damage can easily be much more valuable than durability and material savings by increasing DPS, not just total damage. It's bugged in some way at the moment. Damage should be proportional to power as far as I can tell based on the code, but the buffs currently behave in a number of clearly unintended ways. That has literally nothing to do with the other issue. But I goofed on this one in a rush, so you can disregard it.

In the current system, soil quality is only relevant for the initial nutrients. Passive nutrient regeneration is paused while the block has a bush on top of it. Also, it consumes nutrients when the fruit ripen, not when they are harvested, so it will consume them even if you don't collect the berries. Based on a quick glance at the code, low temperatures seem to only affect mature bushes, if I'm reading it correctly. I'm still gonna answer your longer reply, just so you know.

You're not maximizing power and minimizing risk. You're maximizing the expected total damage per unit of metal, which, to be honest, isn't a very useful metric. You can remove the sequences that end with tempering, because in the current balance it's strictly a loss to temper and not quench afterwards. Also, I haven't checked exactly, but it seems to me that your quenching power multiplier is 0.2 while it should be 0.1. The power ratio between QQT and QQ being ~0.98 also seems odd.