MKMoose

It seems to me that having the injuries carry over would be significantly more interesting in the long run, mainly because then the player would have to treat each injury with the means appropriate to it instead of having everything reduced to a generic debuff. A lot depends on how complex and interesting that resurrection penalty could be made, of course, but you'd have to really put in the effort to make it more interesting than standard treatments for a variety of different injuries. There are naturally some things that would have to be accounted for, like poisons, bleeding and the like which probably shouldn't carry over, at least not fully. I think it would also be quite reasonable to roll the player's health state back in time at least a couple seconds (though a lot of fine-tuning would be necessary here and gradual decay or onset may be useful), so that a sudden death from something like falling into a cave shaft wouldn't be excessively punishing, while a drawn-out death caused by something like starvation wouldn't let the player recover too quickly to the point of being desirable. While it's difficult to really justify them in regular gameplay, I think it would be very interesting to see permanent limb damage and prosthetics in a hardcore setting. More than limbs is also an option, albeit more difficult to reasonably implement at the technology levels of VS. With infinite lives, though, making conventional prosthetics really make sense in a realistic way would probably require to (1) introduce death penalties significant enough that it would be preferable to keep living with a prosthetic rather than just die and get back the healthy limbs, and/or (2) make the prosthetics feel like something useful in their own right rather than just a halfway-fix for a debuff, and yet not useful enough that it becomes worthwhile to deliberately lose limbs and replace them with prosthetics. Both are pretty tricky. I frankly can't think of a possible function of prosthetics that doesn't seem like it could be better fulfilled by regular Jonas tech that doesn't rely on losing limbs, and I think that's where it would have to land: useful mechanical limbs which can be worn both like prosthetics and as augmentations to a healthy body. Though that isn't really prosthetics anymore, and also a massive can of worms when considering the required technology level, lore implications and early-game problems.

It's missing a lore category attribute. I've reported it in #9748 with some additional information. In the meantime, if you want to get the book requested by the trader, you can do so using the following command (explained in more detail here, though be wary of spoilers if you haven't done the story yet) : /giveitem lore-book-aged-orange 1 s[] { category: "diaries" }

It's caused by one of the mods, but it could be almost any of them. I would recommend to follow the steps described by radfast in this issue to get back into the world, and then in a new creative world you can narrow down which mod causes the problem once you find the responsible block and update or disable that mod on the main world (and always backup the main world to be safe).

The soil quality affects the initial nutrient levels of the fruiting bushes, meaning that the plant will start off healthier and will not need fertilizer as quickly to keep it producing. Planting in better soil is essentially equivalent to applying a bit of fertilizer after planting in lower-quality soil. There is no long-term difference besides the visual appearance of the soil. Using terra preta for berry bushes is a waste of terra preta (or a purely cosmetic choice). The reason is simple: for crops, higher soil fertility has long-term effects, as the nutrient levels passively recover back up to the baseline for the soil tier - for berry bushes, however, the effect is only relevant for the initial nutrient levels, which are much cheaper to boost with a few pieces of fertilizer. The difference is so large that I've been actually considering opening a bug report - assuming one terra preta costs 8x compost and 4x bone meal (ignoring the HFS and charcoal), it ends up equivalent to a 188% average nutrient level increase. With low fertility soil having 25% starting nutrient levels and needing 60% to bring it up to terra preta's 85%, it turns out that it costs more to plant one bush on terra preta than it costs to plant three bushes on low fertility soil and fertilize them to terra preta's levels, in the optimal scenario. The ratio is even worse for medium fertility soil, which needs 35% to be brought up to terra preta's levels. Granted, technically the cost is different due to a nutrient imbalance, so normally you'd likely prefer to use more bone meal and some saltpeter or potash (unless you want to cheese the system), but I think it the difference is so large (especially when you don't have HFS and the cost of terra preta becomes effectively doubled) that there is virtually no scenario where terra preta can be considered more cost-effective.

That formula is for missing one specific option out of N. The formula for missing any one or more options is significantly more complex and should naturally always return a higher chance. And wrong formula again. Grossly wrong. What is of interest in this case is the number of k-combinations (the order in the cookpot doesn't matter) with repetitions (we can use multiples of the same ingredient). In the simplest case - vegetable stew - it's the number of 4-element multisubsets from a 7-element set: (10 * 9 * 8 * 7) / (4 * 3 * 2) = 210. If I didn't mess up the mental math somewhere, the correct meal count with your initial assumptions is 89 + 210 + 800 + 112 = 1211. However, multichoose still leaves the problem of "sub-meals" (meals which can be created with the same ingredients as another, more complex meal) and ingredients for a meal all potentially giving different buffs, which I was alluding to in regards to safeguards and rules to control the randomness. The simplest albeit still likely insufficient way to address most problems with your proposed system is to exclude individual food items and meals with repeated ingredients, which could land (with your initial assumptions) at a total of 0 + 35 + 77 + 66 = 178 early-game meals which are actually somewhat unique.

Well, then that changes things. I was presuming that it would be a defensive action, so if you want to lean into a more offensive use then that fundamentally requires some different design assumptions. I want to note two details regarding backpedaling while attacking: If movement is ever given proper momentum instead of having practically instantaneous acceleration to target speed, then a quick motion input wouldn't cause positioning problems. There are alternative motion inputs that could be used, for example (back > forward + LMB, i.e. "move backwards, then forward and attack"), which may be deemed unsuitable due to excess complexity but they address positioning issues and change the move into a counter which is easier to follow up on. Simply making the pommel strike a universal proximity input could work fine, including for something like your example of beating up locusts. The problem I'm running into is that simply making it an offensive action creates a lot more functional overlap with the regular cut. If that's the intent, then a stance change could work fine as well. I'm not sure if I like the theming, because swords are generally known for the blade and not for smacking things with the pommel. And lastly, the same caveat as before: switching to a mace would be functionally almost the same thing as switching to blunt damage on the sword, so I'm not sure if I really see the point of pure stance changing, at least in this specific context. It could work better if that stance change has other effects besides just different attacks, though I'm not sure what effects those could be.

The grinding wheel increasing sharpness in that three-parameter configuration would arguably be a much more interesting bonus than a critical hit chance, so I see no reason not to integrate the two together. But otherwise, it's just a matter of naming. You could name it "piercing", and boom - exact same mechanics, no name conflicts. The point of restricting the pommel strike to a backwards motion input is exactly that it limits the attack's usefulness to cases where the player is attacked and on the back foot. If all attacks are equally viable in all circumstances, then that's arguably a bit boring. Making a pommel strike easier to perform while the player is getting mauled and backing up would be quite intuitive and allow a satisfyingly fast reaction to a threat which would have taken ever so slightly more fiddling about if you had to change the stance first. If range is a concern, proximity detection should do the trick - if there is no close-by enemy, do the normal cut. Making the attack range somewhat unrealistic would be quite fine as well, I think, since we already have swords with 2.5 m range. And ultimately, the intended purpose of the attack is to keep aggressive enemies at bay, so you're more likely to use it when an enemy is close-by. If a system leads you to use one attack exclusively to deal optimal damage, then whether you have to walk backwards to use that attack doesn't change the fundamental problem of one attack being always optimal. A well-designed system will incentivize you to weave different attacks. Or if that's not possible and you still end up with just one optimal attack, then any competent designer will make sure that the most common and universal moves are not annoying to execute.

The one thing that I especially don't like about a system like this is that it just seems arbitrary. And similar effects can be achieved with a system if some limitations are placed on the randomness. There are plenty of mechanics that could be added to incentivize greater food variety which can easily be justified with something like in-game consistency and specific balance considerations, or with realism if nothing else. For example: replacing generic satiety with macronutrients (that all fit into the single bar) which have different effects depending on how much of each the player has, and may interact differently with hunger, adding buffs specific to certain food items or broader food categories as a way to make them more unique - similar to what you're suggesting, but fully or mostly predefined rather than random (the exact effects or their potency could still be partially random for each player) - and potentially involving more complex food combinations and preparation methods, for example something with spices and herbs or potentially medicinal ingredients, certain exotic fruit, perhaps something like Valheim's feasts, implementing a system in a similar vein to the Novelty! mod, to incentivize variety without asking for specific food items, adding some rare food items which are particularly good but virtually impossible to obtain in high quantity, naturally creating a system where the player is incentivized to use these foods whenever possible but cannot subsist exclusively on them, implementing more complexity in farming that would incentivize the player to vary their food sources, which would naturally have some downstream effect on what the player eats, simply adding more unique foods with interesting and fun crafting processes, with or without unique benefits, not unlike the existing alcohol and dairy. Each of these alternatives can naturally have its own flaws, so I'm not saying that they would be strictly better. But random meals getting random buffs, unless you put a whole bunch of rules and safeguards in place (at which point you get close to what I was mentioning with predefined buffs), just seems like a system where there is effectively no rhyme or reason for specific meals getting the effects that they get. Which might be fine for some people, but I for one would strongly dislike it.

It seems to me that having manually switched stances, while certainly an interesting option, would end up quickly annoying to play with, especially with four of them and not two like most systems tend to default to, mainly because switching stances would inherently be an interruption to combat. If more varied attacks are the goal, then it seems to me that it would be a better idea to choose different attacks automatically based on directional inputs as well as sprinting and crouching, and perhaps some added parameters like current player speed, input duration or enemy proximity. This approach can have several possible advantages: instead of having to press a button or even two buttons each time you want to switch modes, the modifiers would apply instantaneously and could be easily varied in the middle of an attack sequence, automatically executing different attacks depending on other inputs effortlessly adds variety even when the player doesn't make a conscious effort to switch attacks - if done well, it can lead to very intuitive and satisfying combat, having certain powerful attacks restricted to specific input combinations can create limitations which reinforce the intended purpose of an attack and contribute to its balance, e.g. an overhead chop requiring forward input and no side inputs or a full-power bow draw requiring no movement at all and a standing (i.e. not crouching) stance would be inherently more risky and commited than other moves. Bonus points if different attacks have drastically different properties and can be chained neatly, e.g. a strafing low-damage swipe which briefly cripples the target's movement and a powerful stationary overhead chop which requires a wind-up and is normally difficult to hit on moving targets. Granted, stances can work well in their own right, albeit they serve a notably different purpose from motion inputs (direction + attack), context-sensitive inputs and other methods to increase variety of available attacks. Motion inputs fall quite squarely under the category of mechanical execution skills, allowing the player to combine inputs and chain them in complex ways. Automatic attack selection based on context can be a purely rule-of-cool choice, but also serve to simplify the inputs by giving the player what they most likely want depending on conditions, making for a more engaging and visually appealing system that retains a low skill floor. Stances, on the other hand, tend to be associated with prediction and risk management, used largely as a method of matching the player's capabilties to the opponent at hand or the environment. Problem: this kind of stances appear most often in mechanically complex games where characters have tightly defined movesets, but VS can easily just allow the player to carry multiple weapons and other equipment, which effectively allows to switch "stances" (actually weapons and accessories) at any moment. For example the sword here, to keep it relatively simple as the baseline multipurpose weapon, could have three primary attacks with different damage types each: cut (slashing) - the default attack, possibly with a few directional variants but those would likely be largely cosmetic differences, thrust (piercing) - requires forward input (ideally only brief input, or with low character velocity, or otherwise limited to avoid using it repeatedly while chasing a target) or potentially crouching, intended as a quick wounding jab to harass or open up the target (could have a charged attack variant as well to allow tighter negative edge timing), pommel strike (blunt) - requires backwards input (and ideally should check for enemy proximity), has low damage and some stunning or knockback effects to help with keeping enemies away.

It does work. Just tested it. Just activate the teleporter and sit on the elk.

These designs look great on their own and I think they are clearly a step forward from the initial art rebrand post, though I cannot help but feel like they still somewhat drift towards excessively small individual features. This would look excellent as a title screen or home page logo or something of the sort, but I would be interested to see propositions for something simpler to serve better as a desktop icon or favicon, or at least an explicit consideration to make them look good in that context, since they currently seem to use the same art: Alpha 1 A and B I worry might look like nothing much when scaled down heavily. Different colors might make it more acceptable (it's probably the most similar to the current logo, I think). Bravo 2 A and B have arguably better shape language, assuming you don't mistake them for mushrooms. Alpha 4 A and B have some very small features, although I think B ends up looking massively better due to the large gear helping out tremendously with the center area, and the crown (including the dead half which inadvertently looks like a shadow) selling the shape really well - it's largely a matter of style and preference, still, but I think that the last one has a lot going for it. Some community suggestions like this one or this one have gone for something that ditches the tree and focuses on the gear to make a more digestible small icon (a temporal gear might still be better for contrast and to avoid similarity to games like Factorio). Granted, there's a lot of complexity here and giving them proper colors and different backgrounds would naturally change things up. If I had to specifically choose one out of these six new concepts, I would lean towards Alpha 4 B . Have a roughly painted-over color version , far from perfect but illustrative enough, because I wanted to see how it could potentially look with the colors of the current logo. Additionally, if I may also ask to reconsider the font here: . I'm guessing it's probably closer to being a concept than a finalized design anyways, and overall it's quite fine and certainly nicely stylized, but I was genuinely confused about a couple of the letters for a few seconds, especially the V and N. Making it more immediately legible could be worthwhile. Fever dream, I tell you. There are certainly plenty of hopes and ideas in the community regarding combat in VS. I, for one, somewhat worry about the survival aspects becoming a lower and lower priority in favor of the adventure, story and combat (1.22 still feels kind of unfinished for me, though maybe that's just a matter of mismatched expectations), so I wouldn't really be satisfied with a combat update that doesn't also bring adjustments to hunting and animal AI. This is shaping up to be a very interesting update nonetheless. The "new types of foliage" also really make me hopeful, because I've felt that VS is very lacking in this area right now, especially in grasses, mosses, shrubs and other low-lying plants.

You can fish in smaller lakes and even artificial ones (ideally at least ~1200 blocks of volume). But if that's not an option as well, then no, you're not missing anything - fennel is just as bad as it seems.

It's difficult to really talk about specialization in this context, because overreliance on a food source will generally lead to faster depletion of food stores. At high difficulty it's more about reliability and availability, so a mix is usually required to survive then, especialy if you want to get decent nutrition early-on. Regarding the 1.22 changes, though: Fishing, I think, is annoying, gamey, and extremely front-loaded in its challenge. Depletion is virtually impossible if you have a large enough body of water. If you find a great fishing spot, you can fish up 1500-satiety chonkers (when filleted and cooked) at least every other catch, and you just need a decent supply of bait. Even if you're not particularly lucky, it's pretty trivial to come out positive on satiety - just watch out for areas which have no fish at all. I did fishing mostly just because once I have the resources, it ends up being trivially simple. Wild berries alongside crops and mushrooms are plentiful while traveling, not significantly worse than they used to be, and you should generally collect them whenever you have free inventory space and aren't intending to come back to the area anytime soon. Even in the middle of winter, at least if you get to berries in new chunks before they realize what season it is. Here's a casual 5130 satiety hotbar (9570 satiety if I were to cook all of this) plus a pile of seeds collected at the end of winter (first of March), sprinting around new territory on Standard settings and burning 1500 satiety over somewhere around 10 minutes: Wild animals are easier to kill or capture than they used to, and the new mouflon sheep provide a pretty safe and reliable early-game food source. If you quickly make a fence and get some animals in there, it is entirely possible to breed them at least once before winter. Not exactly the safest option due to how unnaturally aggressive the animals are, but due to the base experience being rather easy it was by far the most fun for me. It provides pretty good food security and helps with setting up leather and fat for later parts of the game. Finding a good hunting spot is an option as well, though remember that game animals don't (or at least shouldn't, if I recall correctly) respawn during winter. Crops now need to be protected from nibblers and grains are less efficient than they used to, but frankly that just made farming more of a chore to set up and not any less reliable once you do so. And once you have a basic farm set up, you're golden for the rest of the game, and it doesn't seem to me that this part of the balance will ever change.

As pointed out, fish population is not tied to the body of water, but it's not tied to chunks either. This is comprised of two aspects: Animal maps that determine which fish species can spawn in a given location, which may differ for every (X, Z) location - you can technically extract them using the command /wgen region animal (you'll get 9 17x17 maps that look something kind of like this: for the 512x512 region you're in), and frankly it's probably not going to be of much use. I don't even remember how to interpret them exactly, and there might be something I'm forgetting but I seem to recall that it's interpolated and compared against 128 to get the binary result. A mod could access that information and display it neatly, even in-game, but you'd have to make it yourself or ask in the modding channels for someone to make it. Gradual fish depletion, which operates on 8x8 areas and allows you to get at most 12 fish per 14 days from each of these 8x8 areas - this cannot be previewed in any way in the vanilla game as far as I can tell, and again there's no mod that currently does this that I could find.

What frankly baffles me in this whole discussion is that distance is given so much weight, while what the player can do over that distance gets seemingly thrown to the wayside. There are plenty of games which have the player travel huge distances over the course of a playthrough, and the best of them tend to be characterized by several traits: travel follows a clear trail of story-focused sub-objectives which lead the player between distinct regions of the world with carefully managed periods of tension and rest, the world is dotted with various quests and minor points of interest which provide plenty of variety between major locations and prompt to explore before moving on, the player is able to carry practically everything that they need, and inventory systems are mostly limited just to keep players from accumulating garbage, what the player can't carry is instead placed in key points of interest, like traders in cities, risk is minimized to a local scope, so that the player never loses an excess of progress. There is plenty that can be discounted on the account of theming, desired experience or inherent limitations of the game, but when the game just skips almost everything that facilitates engaging travel, then how can you expect players to enjoy it? A common argument seems to be roughly that the current or generally longer distances better incentivize the player to prepare and they make travel feel more impactful, and yet in my experience they quite literally don't do that. You could double the distance, and I will still run day and night fueled by berries and spite, and would be completely unimmersed and bored throughout. You could halve the distance, and I might actually prepare adequately and that trip would feel like a single, cohesive experience, in large part just because preparation no longer feels like a fool's errand. I don't think this really works unless travel is made much more challenging. FYI, you're arguing here that ~70%+ of the current distance scaling wouldn't work for Chapter 2 (not even considering the cave because it's actually very close). Once we aren't considering clearly undesirable extremes, there is no coherent way to say what distance is better, especially when getting into differences as small as 5k vs 7k, except maybe through statistics like player retention in a random trial, and we clearly don't have that option. Doubly so because a lot depends on context, and changing that context could actually be the best way to widen the window within which story structure distance is acceptable. I believe that nothing would help with travel distances more than (1) world generation and movement tweaks to make travel itself more engaging and enjoyable, and (2) features like pack animals and tents to facilitate long-distance travel with large amounts of cargo and quick camp or outpost setup, as well as potentially some changes to respawning that have been discussed in this thread somewhat. Simply give the player the means to do what you want them to do. And if you want travel to be challenging, then make it so intentionally through regions of resource scarcity and threats, instead of making the whole process just tedious and boring with the biggest threat being random sinkholes.

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.