MKMoose

Quoting Redram's clarification in the discord thread on it (I don't think I can find anything going into more detail): While on the topic, there's also this post by Redram from a couple years ago, in a thread about hunting.

There has been a pretty big (2000+ messages) discussion on related topics in the discord server. There are two main suggestions regarding butchering. The first focuses on the realistic process itself, and that could end up being pretty graphic and uncomfortable even if implemented in a less explicit way, not unlike proposed by the OP. The devs have said that detailed butchering and skinning is likely never coming to the vanilla game, because "certain team member(s) have a visceral reaction of nausea to depictions of gore that hew too closely to reality." However, that presumably doesn't exclude less detailed mechanics that achieve the same gameplay goals. And that leads to the second point about the gameplay purpose of butchering, which I think would fit the game very well as a relatively labor-intensive way to obtain more realistic quantities of meat and other resources from animals. Instead of killing six or so boars in a single hunting trip to get a decent supply of protein, you'd be able to kill a single boar, carry it home, set it on a butchering hook, break it down, make a meal from some of the meat and preserve the rest. The reward per amount of time spent could be similar, but the process would be much more involved, sophisticated and satisfying. This doesn't inherently require any graphic visuals, and I'd imagine that it shouldn't cause significant issues if implemented appropriately - if the current vague knife movements and the animal suddenly turning into bones are fine, then doing the same on a butchering table or hook instead of in the middle of a forest should be tolerable. Animal husbandry would then also have to be made more demanding as well to keep it balanced, with the reward being higher.

One thing that Vintage Story excels at which I find people really don't appreciate enough is that there's very little inventory clutter. And when there are any sort of items which don't have any significant uses, they are almost always picked up voluntarily. I can grab a couple specific tools that I need, a bowl of food and some other necessities, run off to do a specific task, and when I come back I just put back those tools and a full inventory of exactly the resources I set out to acquire in the first place. There's almost no additional clutter that I have to choose to either keep or throw away to make space for the stuff I actually initially wanted. One thing that was really annoying me when I tried Hytale was that swinging a weapon would destroy plants and some clutter, which meant a whole bunch of items dropping onto the ground. So I would go somewhere to do something, and while fighting three monsters or animals on the way I would inadvertently collect 3x grass, 1x stick, 2x purple petals, 1x yellow petals, 1x stone rubble and 3x green moss. It was genuinely infuriating after the 10th or 20th time. Vintage Story isn't completely free of similar problems, especially if you start collecting broken vessels, crops and so on, but I find that it's still ahead of most similar games especially considering that I've not felt these problems despite inventory space being more limited that in those other games. As a general rule, if I don't interact with it deliberately, don't shove anything into my inventory - anything that doesn't respect this ends up being annoying and undesirable, and broken toolheads fall squarely into that category. That's, side note, one of the less commonly mentioned reasons why monsters and animals arguably shouldn't have more varied loot (unless butchering gets made into a more developed mechanic, then you'd be carrying whole animals back home anyways). It can already be taxing on inventory space to return from a hunting trip with 2x flax fibers, 2x bone arrow, 10x red meat, 2x poultry, 3x bushmeat, 2x fat, 2x medium hide, 1x raccoon hide, 1x fox hide, 8x bone and 2x small bones, so having a whole bunch of extra variety on top would easily end up difficult to manage. This also tends to be a pretty big high-level design issue with many mods like Wildcraft - having a whole multitude of rock types, wood types, crop species and so on is already sometimes annoying to manage in the vanilla game, and having more things that serve only to create more variety is sometimes just not helpful. This is also why I'm gonna be looking out for the berry bush rework, and making sure to communicate it appropriately that there shouldn't be more than a couple species fruiting at the same time. I would be generally interested in managing used metal in various ways, like recasting, reforging into smaller tools, all of that, but it risks just adding more clutter at practically no benefit besides realism. A related alternative could lie in tool maintenance that is expected to be done in the field or when putting a tool away, primarily in the form of sharpening and oiling. It could be much more engaging to make it so that the player can maintain their weapons, tools and armor with care to improve their effectiveness and lengthen their lifetime, without making the player carry scraps with them. If you've seen a real scythe, then you may have seen it sharpened every couple minutes of mowing. If reforging or recasting is the goal, then I would at the very least look into allowing to break down all metal items into bits before they break and getting variable reward depending on durability, so that the player doesn't feel forced to use them up entirely in order to then reprocess.

That's pretty true in the current state of the game, though I'm not sure if it will continue to be true when any alternatives to flax get added. Cotton, jute, hemp, wool, silk, whatever the devs choose, I'd expect at least one or two to be added sooner or later (though some of them wouldn't be an exact alternative to flax, especially not jute). It would be a bit lame to feel forced into flax in spite of having alternative fibers - you might then end up with the opposite problem of needing a bunch of flax in nearly every single game just for easy oil. Adding some other sources of oil could then serve to make flax more of an optional convenience than a must, but I'd imagine that many people would still default to it just due to how common, universal and simple it is (sure, it has to be ground and boiled for some reason, but that's still nearly free and just takes time). Linen with all its uses, easy animal feed, emergency food if need be, one of the best sources of compost in the game, and add oil to that as well? While linseed oil doesn't have any really inherent issues and I don't really mind its addition, the main worry of sorts that I have is that it could make hunting borderline worthless for many players. Right now it's primarily useful for leather and fat - meat is a thing, of course, but once you get either soybeans or chickens going, then meat from hunting is pocket change in many cases, and it's less reliable. Removing fat as a significant incentive by giving oil nearly for free alongside linen which the player already wants for windmills would only leave leather.

As it is coded currently, it seems that it will only detect suitable power source blocks when fully constructed. And at the same time, there seems to be a bug that makes it impossible to build it.

The only reason I said "literally everybody" specifically in quotes, is to slightly less directly point out the absurdity of you saying "literally nobody" or an equivalent phrase four times in your litany of complaints equally directionless as you're claiming the devs are. I'd be more willing to take your "feedback" here seriously if it wasn't filled with ad hominem arguments, multiple inaccuracies and hyperboles that muddy all of your points, and senseless complaining about in-progress features that are confirmed or at least very likely to change before the update hits stable.

I know, but you did say that hunting is "maybe even too easy", which may imply that you're largely reducing the point you're replying to to a matter of difficulty. Difficulty is largely irrelevant, because it can be adjusted almost freely (ideally would be even better if they added a creature loot multiplier config), and what matters most for hunting is that the design as a whole is intuitive, engaging and satisfying. Don't discount a system before you even know what it does. Tongs having durability is something "literally everybody" wanted, because handling white-hot metal with wood in the first place is only a bright idea as long as the tongs keep burning. Try holding a cooking pot fresh off the stove with your bare hands and tell me how that goes for you. There have already been more constructive suggestions to reduce the maximum temperature to which certain meals can be increased and add a special items like a towel that would allow to hold items at up to ~150-200 C or a spoon/ladle that would allow to portion meals from a hot pot. Literally nothing has changed so far in how mechanical power works. It's a work-in-progress, and heat-resistant axles are still in the plans for the update.

I actually disagree, to an extent. The fun of variety, in my opinion, is just having all the options. There doesn't really need to be mechanics tied to every bit of it to justify its existence. I tried a mod similar to Novelty in Minecraft quite some time ago, as I had the same idea--give some buffs to a varied diet, to give a reason to actually eat something different. And it was fun for a little while...until I figured out that now it really wasn't possible to just eat whatever I wanted to eat in the game, without getting penalized for the choice. Thus the whole process becomes just an exercise in min-maxing, figuring out which food has exactly the right nutrients next in order to maintain all the buffs without triggering any debuffs. Maybe with the low variety that vanilla Minecraft offered for food, it would have been better, but that mod just really did not pair well at all with mods like Pam's Harvestcraft, which adds a TON of options. I feel like this mostly comes down to how difficult it would be to achieve complete nutrition. If you need to cycle ten types of fruit just to fill the bar, that would quickly get a bit tedious. But if it means you need to eat two or three types of fruit instead of just one when you have ten available, then that doesn't really restrict you to eat specific ones. That said, I would love to mention the idea to give different food items more varied amounts of satiety and nutrition, and perhaps some new mechanics related to how much energy or fat the food can contain. An effect similar to Novelty could still be included as part of this, potentially by reducing nutrition for a single food item if the player eats too much of it in a short amount of time, but the point is that the primary incentive to variety should ideally lie in the items themselves and not in an external system that somewhat artificially enforces it. Then choosing food items would be more influenced by the player's playstyle and momentary needs in a hopefully believable way: preparing food for travelling or preserving it for winter would call for something more fatty, filling and space-efficient, not just long-lasting, anticipating combat or hunting may get the player to pick up high-sugar snacks to eat in breaks during combat to replenish stamina, staying back home would allow to put more time and effort into highly nutritional and varied meals to get the maximum health boost.

Boooi, I didn't even notice the new fruits initially. Beautyberry, blackberry, cloudberry, gooseberry, guava, kumquat, big num-num, raspberry, strawberry and cactus fruit. And they exist as items already, unlike potatoes which have only had shapes for a while but no implemented items. No new bushes or trees so far, though, so they're presumably coming at a later date. One thing I kind of worry about is whether there's not too many of them. It's still got nothing on Wildcraft, but having 28 fruit types that barely differ between each other besides climate preferences seems a bit pointless to me. That's mainly because they can't be too common if they're a food source, so they'll probably just be small and fairly visible patches of bushes and solitary trees that stick out from the landscape more than they add variety to it. To me the plant debris looks like it's just gonna drop from berry bushes (and potentially other stuff) when broken without an appropriate tool (maybe shovel). My biggest request is honestly just to never make me pick it up accidentally, because it looks like it's gonna have zero use except as fuel or compost. As long as that's fulfilled, I don't expect much from it, but it seems like a pretty good addition. Regarding oil, a lot depends on what they want to do with it. Linseed oil could be used as a lubricant, as protective coating for metal tools, or for oil lamps. Its production method is kinda weird. Olive oil can already be used for oil lamps, and realistically it's very commonly used culinarily, so maybe they're gonna try something there. It could cause a bunch of changes to progression by reducing demand for animal fat and increasing the usefulness of some plants, though I'm not sure how to feel about flax getting another use.

Note that hunting being difficult is really not the problem, and I don't even recall seeing a single complaint about it just being difficult. The vast majority of feedback on hunting, for example the above post or this recent post, focuses on it being annoying, unrealistic, unrewarding, janky, unimmersive and a couple other qualities in that vein, if worded more or less subtly. It's rare that a single hit outright kills an animal unless it's very well-placed, and even less common to kill right on the spot with no flight, even for small animals, since that usually requires brain or nerve damage. Even when hit quite accurately, there's good chance that the spear will not pin it and it will bolt, and hitting it this way in the first place is a challenge in itself. But that said, there is no realm where damage having zero effect on an animal's state besides behavior can be considered realistic or satisfying. Hunting fundamentally relies on ambush and pursuit, especially prehistorically, but that dynamic is nearly nonexistent in Vintage Story at the moment. The distance at which animals notice the player is also much lower than it should realistically be, especially for boars. I'm not expecting significant improvements in this area until 1.23, though, and the current state is at least tolerable and can be supplemented with mods if needed.

I reproduced your exception. Make sure you exactly follow the syntax (though you can use double quotes instead of single quotes, and maybe there's some leeway for whitespaces): /giveblock tapestry-north 1 { type: 'nightfall1' } In case that doesn't work in multiplayer, you can try setting the target to self: /giveblock tapestry-north 1 s[] { type: "nightfall1" }

Besides other issues with black bronze, I want to just point out that regular gravel and sand don't drop silver at all - it's only obtainable this way from bony soil.

Assuming you're throwing the spear, then my diagnosis is that you've just gotten a double-hit once or twice (notice that I said "hits", not "throws", so my earlier calculations remain accurate).

I'll try to test it later, but I'd wager it depends on the class in question, and how the pig is being attacked with the spear. I want to say that in 1.21 it took 4 melee hits with a copper spear for a Blackguard to kill a pig. A pig has 15 health, so, with a copper spear which has 2.75 melee damage and 4.25 thrown damage, it should take: in melee, 5/6/7 hits for a Blackguard/commoner/hunter, when thrown, 5/4/3 hits for a Blackguard/commoner/hunter, up from 4/3/3 in the current stable.

Yeah, that's probably because the particles strictly require at least 0.4 average rainfall, or because you were close to the temperature threshold. However, it seems that for some reason temporal stability is disabled in story locations. How unfortunate. I would really like to see surface stability overhauled, but I honestly find these discussions about it kind of tiring and annoying. The main issue that I have with your argumentation is that the entire mechanic ends up hinging on whether the player is paying attention. If you want instability to catch the player off-guard and create this feeling of a pervasive, unfamiliar threat, then the first step practically has to be to remove the UI indicator or greatly reduce its reliability. Then the player will have to pay attention to their environment or create more specialized measurement devices, and there will be space for forgetting, missing clues, investigating and double-checking. From there, tension and immersion arise in very natural ways, much more suitable for eldritch horror. One suggestion that I really liked was comparing stability to nuclear radiation (not unlike it's done in postapocalyptic settings like S.T.A.L.K.E.R.), pointing out that besides very obvious cases you really can't tell at first glance whether an area is irradiated, but that doesn't mean that the radiation has no direct or indirect effects on the fauna and flora in the region. And you can still have the site of a nuclear accident as a particularly unique story location. One thing that gets to me about these discussions about stability is that details are not important at the design stage, and yet people tend to focus on them the most. What I like to focus on in cases like this is to settle on some basic assumptions, commonly including: a primary idea that defines the mechanic, e.g. "an ambient hazard that permeates the world and isn't easily noticeable", important goals regarding what these features aim to achieve and how they should interact with the player, e.g. "introduce tension and unnaturalness to the world", "catch the player off-guard occasionally", and constraints that keep everything in check, e.g. "don't impede builders on the surface", "make sure to keep everything clear enough for new players", "don't disrupt the natural appearance of the world in obvious ways"; development time and effort can also be an important constraint. From there, a concrete set of features can be drawn up. Further details are largely just an execution of these assumptions, and in many cases if the design is coherent then everything will fall into place neatly. One issue where this kind of goes off-track for me, which I think I've mentioned elsewhere, is that I genuinely don't understand how you see the current implementation of temporal stability as achieving some of the goals that you're saying it achieves. While preference is an acceptable explanation for enjoying a mechanic, I just don't see it as a significant argument once you've defined broadly what you think the mechanic should achieve. In my own experience, it just doesn't follow the "not easily noticeable" and "sometimes catch the player off-guard" ideas, at least not in a remotely satistying way due to the vastly different dynamics that it creates with different kinds of players. But that said, I've not seen you talk about any design-level goals or constraints that I would significantly disagree with. I do like the idea broadly, and I seem to recall a suggestion to replace trader huts in unstable areas with empty, ruined huts. A bunch of tiny structures and scattered items like abandoned campsites, ruined carts, lost baggage and so on could be added throughout the world, and some more recent ruins and remains would be fitting in unstable areas.

In density search, halite does appear, but sylvite does not. Halite generates in two types of deposits, and only salt domes show up in density search, but you can stumble upon salt lake beds near the surface in hot climates as well. In node search, halite is not detected, but sylvite is, so it's still useful to use node search when trying to locate a salt dome.

Large gameplay benefits are not the primary purpose of endgame progression, and they generally shoudn't be. But even still, steel plate for example reduces your damage recieved from highest-tier threats by about 25% relative to iron armor (less against lower-tier monsters), and that's on top of a humongous durablity increase. I'd say that's plenty incentive to make steel. Ferrous tools and weapons have just been buffed with the addition of quenching, which allows to apply a small buff to all iron or steel weapons and tools practically for free or a larger buff with a bit more effort and risk. Armor hasn't been changed in this update so far and I would be interested to see heat treatment extended to it as well. Generally, I think it's one of the many systems which would benefit from an overhaul sooner or later, but it isn't too much of a priority as the current state of it is functional enough. People tend to use gambeson most of the time, and metal armor is usually reserved for high-risk situations like story locations and storms. And also, if you're "constantly being attacked", then consider caring more about durability, because your armor will be worn down quickly. At the same time, if you expect the game to suddenly get easy when you get iron armor, then you might want to adjust your expectations, because temporal storms are supposed to be by far the greatest threat in the game besides perhaps story locations or caving near the mantle. While better armor and gear will let you get away with more mistakes, you shouldn't expect not to die quickly when facing the most dangerous enemies in the game. If you intend to fight during storms, having a safe space to retreat to and some spare healing items is a must.

Sent me hunting through the code, but I think those are referred to as summer air particles, spawning in warm and rainy areas while it's not raining, wind speed is low and primarily in daylight. Got my hopes up there.

First quenching increases damage by 10%, which means that steel spears get 6.82 for free (not sure about rounding). Spear durability is already better than arrows, but ultimately doesn't matter much. Keep in mind you can do the same to a falx. It is a significant balance factor that I did admittedly kinda neglect, though it can only be done on ferrous metals, while spear balance discussions often focus on flint and early metals which is where spears will likely continue to see by far the most use. Only blades can be sharpened at the moment, that is swords and falxes, but I'd expect the mechanic to be more developed in the future, so I wouldn't want to say too much about it specifically. I'd argue it should be possible to quench and temper arrowheads, but if not then it will make them effectively a bit weaker, true.

Well, in pre.1 melee has barely changed for most targets, while ranged is only really notably worse for some rotbeasts and large animals. Once it turned out that they had also reduced the health of small animals, the changes haven't been too bad anymore. One potential issue now is that bronze offers an arguably excessively large effective damage boost over copper as it hits better breakpoints on five common targets that have a multiple of 5 HP. That said, here's a fun thing: they've doubled the spear's windup time in pre.2, so they are now slower than bows. I'd argue it's a good change in terms of design, but it's nonetheless a pretty large nerf. I don't doubt that spears' balance will be evaluated and further tweaked as needed before 1.22 hits stable, and I'm somewhat wondering if they're nerfing them further now to see how much is too much and whether there's actually a need to bring the damage back up. That's a pretty good way to look at it, and, coincidentally or not, it's even quite realistic with the caveat of range in which spears excel. In melee, spears are rather well-designed in that they have low damage and poor durability, which makes the falx outright better whenever range doesn't matter. Ranged combat is a bit more finnicky to balance in its current state, though. My personal thought is that spears should be capable of dealing ~8 damage, maybe even ~10 on the steel tier, but in exchange for being more difficult to throw effectively. In the current stable throwing is basically the default choice in many contexts (and is also made unreasonably good due to a double-hit issue that greatly increases damage), and while a ranged damage nerf has made melee more viable, it may also easily make throwing very unrewarding against anything that doesn't die in at most three hits due to the need to carry a large number of spears to achieve reasonable total damage before having to retrieve all of them. For related reasons (make throwing less universally good, even if it has high damage) spears should ideally also be more risky to throw at short range, potentially done through further penalties to drawing a ranged weapon while running. It would allow to further differentiate melee and throwing between each other and potentially make throwing into a high-risk high-reward play even more so than it is now. Increased windup time largely seems to achieve that, but I'll have to play with it more to see how it feels. For balance against bows, spears could be made more sluggish and heavy to make throwing them more optimal at close-to-mid-range (while keeping in mind that throwing shouldn't be preferable at point-blank), while bows could have increased projectile velocity to be preferable at longer ranges, especially for the bowtorn and for hunting more easily spooked animals like deer. All that said, these are general ideas and suggestions and not concrete recommendations, so I'll be especially interested to hear more opinions on the doubled windup time and on where spears should go from there.

Both issues should be fixed in 1.22.0-pre.2. You can update by running the installer for the new update from the 1.22 page.

They're in the changelog and implemented in the game, but not craftable at the moment due to a bug.

They switched up animation speed with movement speed. Now fixed in pre.2.

Just a small note: that quote of mine isn't fully accurate, because I initially neglected that the HP of some small animals was reduced (foxes and raccoons from 6 down to 5, hares from 5 to 3, chickens from 3 to 2.5). As a whole, breakpoints for most of the small animals are the same or very similar, and the changes overall have the most impact on fighting high-tier rotbeasts and large animals, especially bears, which can now take many more thrown spears. While this doesn't change my conclusions too much as I still think making spear throws powerful but less frequent should be the way to go, I would correct that quote to something more like this: While it's not tightly related to spear balancing, the reduction to small animals' health does also mean that spear melee damage and weapons other than spears have been buffed indirectly, though the change doesn't seem particularly significant to me. It mostly means that: bows with iron or better arrows, as well as meteoric iron and steel falxes, can now one-tap raccoons and foxes, a large number of weapons can now pretty easily one-tap hares (which spears could do with a single throw anyways, now they can also do it in melee starting from bronze).

It may be worth noting that mountains similar to this are already sometimes possible to find, though they don't end with rocky peaks that look this good. Some mountains should ideally be closer to your suggestion, but some should remain steeper, because both are realistic in their own ways. Realistically, the slope you're suggesting may still be steeper near the peaks, and the transition from soil and trees to rock should be much more patchy and gradual, and there should generally be more shrubs like dwarf mountain pine and similar. But I do think this would largely be a change for the better. Overall, I would enjoy some world generation changes aimed at mountains and highlands, though it's actually quite tricky to implement in the current system and I wouldn't expect any big changes until a larger overhaul, if such ever comes. A proper overhaul would also serve as a better cutoff point, instead of making people wonder whether they should update now or later if every update were to change world generation bit by bit.