Kulze

I mean... as stated: 'Wurm Online' was quite an active game - and still exists nowadays - which uses that exact system in place actually. And it's interesting, functional and actually quite well designed with their other mechanics in place. That was by the way the last game where 'Notch' (the creator of Minecraft if not known) was working on before making himself self-employed. He's the co-creator of the game. It's the inspiration for a game to allow adjusting everything in the world fully as well as making it block-based, albeit Wurm only had 2 layers, above and below ground in functionality for the longest time unlike Minecraft. Much earlier project simply.

I mean... 'Devil's' and 'Bitter' kinda are quite a bit of a tell-tale naming sign I think the damage from bitter boletes to be quite un-fun though, instead a nauseous debuff would be nice, loosing quite a lot of nutrition instead of that mild hit. The only ones which actually are name-wise an issue are 'Elfin saddly' 'Jack-o-lantern', 'gold-drop milkcap', 'earth ball' and 'pink bonnet'. All others are quite reasonable. Whoever eats a 'fool's', 'devil's', 'death' or 'laughing' is kinda at fault for their own mistakes. 'Sickener' and 'Death's cap' being kinda obvious ones especially, anyone even trying that one without thinking deserves it Generally: A 'one time eaten' method would do the system well there. It's a compromise between the fairly useless existence of poison mushrooms now... which pose no danger since their danger is directly conveyed... and the wiki-mandate basically. So you don't need to remember things but your first experience will be interesting for sure. I would even argue a world-setting for that is a prime addition. - Reveal mushroom effect (Default) - Reveal effect after eaten permanently - Reveal effect after eaten until death. - Never reveal effect. This way the choice is there and allows for fun situations without pushing the whole system ad-absurdum as it currently is the case.

For every realistic system it's always the same question: Does the added realism improve immersion far enough to counteract the lost convenience? If there's a use for different-sized trunks then it absolutely can make sense. Smaller ones being readily available to directly get sticks or making beams out of it with reduced cost compared to larger logs (wastage). The ability to cut down larger sized part into smaller ones comes also in as a gameplay addition there. If it's solely increasing item count without function then I wouldn't want to see that plainly spoken. Root systems are always a problematic issue. They are tedious to handle... and well... while realistically expected they just tend to not be 'fun' plain and simple. Though when it comes to root systems which are visible aboveground (wetland trees form them at times) then that's a completely different topic and can visually enhance the game quite a bit I imagine. So not a complete 'write-off' idea, but likely hard to implement growth of that kind without making it feel 'wonky' in some form. For the wood splitting itself: Having the ability to use planted log as a fixed place interact with any sort of 'prepared' wood would be a prime addition. Plainly spoken I never understood why debarked logs are locked behind the copper age. Sure, it's a better looking - potentially at least - building material, but debarking is a very easy job for most trees. Some directly peel off, others splinter off with a bit of pressure at least, especially after drying. So one solution I see there is to have solid logs (with bark) be allowed to interact directly with any debarked log put on top of it, enabling the usage of an axe on it when interacted with it, then getting the crafting option of what you wanna produce. This actually could even be the introduction basis of a woodworking system itself. An axe for any rough working that can be done (planks definitely are 'rough') but tedius to take off material, shown by having to do a lot more steps then otherwise would be seen and producing less while also only working on simple (hence straight) pieces. Anything complex, hence things which aren't just a straight split then would enforce a saw, which also acts as a faster and more productive tool for things like planks. Less waste. Also the interactive crafting is a very big thing in VS, so I'm very much for the immersive option while taking away the grid-recipes. The less grid recipes in my opinion the better. For the tradeoffs: - Yeah, sub-blocks definitely create some form of overhead. Performance-wise maybe, depends on the code, can go both ways. Either not even worth a thought or with a mediocre system taking up substantial resources. I see more issues there arising with spawn complexity. If there's sub-blocks would they need to be moved after growth occurs? Hence deleting and adding those again? That can lead to a ton of odd bugs for sure. Same as when any sub-blocks are at the top. - It's a big system... and I would say 'modular' in this case. We got a trunk, a trunk forms branches, those can grow out when at least mid-sized, max length from trunk, allows for quite sizeable tree structues I'm sure. The trunk can also - with age - then increase in thickness beyond 1 block, merging branches back in (which increases the count of different blocks by enforcing to have all the possible connection combinations, or 'overlapping' them simply) and hence allowing wider growth based on with (it can withstand more force, so can carry larger thicker branches). Fun idea for sure! Likely untenable though to come anytime soon as it would enforce a change in the world-seeding itself by reorganizing how trees are spawned in general. - Well, one solution for the leaves is that the first stage of a branch is a branchy leaf. That branchy leave can then spawn multiple leaves around it with pushing the distance further with another branchy leaf while the former block becomes a 'thin branch'. Hence more then a stick but not feasable to hold leaves directly anymore. That would create a natural tree-shape with the proper code attached. But definitely not 'lightweight' in performance - The bloat is only an issue as long as we don't have carts, wheelbarrows or anything of the sorts. Working down a tree would with the more complex (and hence larger-shaped) trees become a more invested process anyway. So carrying them off by type after sorting out on-site is how it would go. More similar to actual woodworking hence. That's a downside that inherently comes with this type of increase in realism. Can't reasonably be avoided without re-introducing the issue of the variety not adding actual mechanics. - Probably wouldn't need to cube it further, too much overhead I imagine. But it gives an idea definitely: Intentionally cutting branches to make the tree re-grow it at another applicable position around the now freed space. You could start shaping trees specifically this way over time. A bit similar to fruit trees which do regrow again after all. For the additional stuff: - Early beams and planks should plainly spoken be a given. It goes hand in hand with more invested woodworking, meaning planks alone wouldn't do much, could use it for 'crude' decorative stuff though when going towards vanity items to simply make the world more varied looking. Things coming to mind are generally rope-tied things, or those connected via a crude hole and being connected with a wedge only, no complex forms. Rope-tied doors, crude stools and tabling, that stuff. And for anything actually decent like a crate you then would need the saw for assembly, cutting it to size immersive-wise for the connections. And chests need copper anyway so they are not and issue. Beams are needed before copper anyway because of cave-ins for a more cohesive experience and are otherwise only decorative. - Stumps, yeah, no issue. Root system as mentioned would cause severe downsides, usually not worth those, they tend to be more problem then enjoyment. Too realistic. - Woodcarving is a big thing. Early on it would definitely make sense to get your first potential utensils this way. - Bark instead of whole oak logs for tannin. The highest tannin concentration is in the bark anyway, makes more sense then shoving a whole tree into a barrel Also it's really hard to leech the tannin out of thick logs instead of thin bark. - Leaf regrowth would be fantastic. As well as season-specific blooming/fruiting times. So seed management being a thing for trees itself. Also as @cjameshuff mentioned it would resolve issues with for example walnut trees. All in all nice interesting ideas! Some more feasable then others definitely, be it through gameplay issues or through the sheer resource need to code it properly. But well designed I can see it enhancing the game more in the 'manual crafting' direction then having the grid being used. Yes, that's called 'compass wood' Since the grain there isn't straight but curved and offers a high variety of shapes (which are naturally grown and hence keep stable) they were used instead of cut wood. Not only reduces it the surface area which takes in moisture but also has a higher natural stability for forces working on it. Could be specifically gathered from stumps and then used for shipbuilding of all sorts, being a necessity. Otherwise also as a side-use of firewood obviously.

So, to cut it down in size: @Rainbow Fresh I specifically called out nonsensical arguments, not reasonable ones. As you stated, and I also agree with, Moose's idea is currently the best in that regard, as well as the mod Bruno linked. I did absolutely smack down on comments which were absolute and entire nonsense though. And I'll also call you out on 'calling me out' there. If you re-read properly you'll see that I answered everyone but one person neutrally or positively, for a reason. The 3 things which led to it were: -'If you provide an incentive then people will pivot to it' which is a 'No shit Sherlock' argument but was used as a method to speak against it. That's bad communication by itself as it proclaims 'Incentive will cause people to stop using non-incentives' which is obvious. We don't use flint tools after achieving copper tools if we can help it. It's presented as a negative though, which deserves a verbal smack to be clear. -'People will make bug reports about it'... I hope you can see what a non-argument that is without issue. -'If a question comes then you won't be able to answer it' which was even repeated. And I did answer it neutrally the first time if you re-read. Only after repeatedly pushing on that - plainly spoken still absolutely nonsensical - point I went into smacking that verbally back. It's not a rocket-science thing presented, it's a simplistic system where said question is as simply answered. That was it. And the next time something like this happens I'll still smack down on it again because that way of argumentation towards my idea rather then something in the direction of 'I wouldn't like it, xyz would feel better overall' are extremely detrimental to any creative thinking. As mentioned above 'Devil's Advocate' only goes 'so far'. It has limits and if you go substantially beyond them you get verbally smacked, and reasonably so, it's to be expected to not create a walking menace. You're also right with it not fitting well into the survival realism style. I couldn't think of a tenable mechanic at the time which would be, Moose's did instead, which, Kudos there! So I went the second-best option. Gameplay-focus. If something is a shortcoming (food variety issues are sadly) and no realistic solution is found then a gamified one at least fulfills the job of keeping engagement for it. Same with your argument about it potentially becoming a tedium. Yes, that is a risk, absolutely so, fully on your side there! One solution is a tiering method, allows to keep effect variety low but probability of getting a good result nonetheless adequately rare which leads to low effort to get the baseline result but higher effort to maximize it all. Hence it only plays a role for someone actively hunting every bit of min-max possible. Which is also someone which is less likely to restart a map repeatedly, so likely not much of an issue, could become one though if not well handled. @Bruno Willis Like the cutlery idea! Would expand on the usage of material and allow better interior design at the same time. Plus a bonus for doing things with a nice base. Also great to see that mod already exists, didn't know about that one. Yes, that's one I agree with as well, a version of that absolutely should be vanilla. @MKMoose You're right, it's only for 'one', though the argument also was only about 'the one wanted'. Overall to miss an option would be higher, true. And the second... I didn't think about that, totally missed that position wouldn't effect it, hence 'meat,meat,parsnip,carrot' being the same as 'meat,meat,carrot,parsnip'. Yeah, then we lean more towards the lower variety option for buffing definitely, meaning with 60 different ones it would actually start to become a serious problem. Ultimately it would still keep the chance for that specific circumstance very low at least and is solved with a method allowing to change the buff for a specific combination, like alcohol or the new mushrooms. Good catch definitely.

What do you mean with 'questions that can't be answered'? Do you deem every individual to be a world-class moron inherently? I get making sure that a mechanic won't turn into any ill-advised results that destroy the enjoyment of the game... but for god's sake, it's getting beyond ridiculous. You wanna tell me you lack the simple capacity to state 'It's a randomized system, you need to find out which food gives you which buff personally' while also the recipient of this completely viable and 100% understandable answer lacks the capacity to understand it? First off... this is NOT a system with even a remotely relevant measure of gameplay impact compared to ES alchemy. You seem to really REALLY lack the understanding of what magnitude of existing variety does to a RNG system. In ESO we got 4 effects on each ingredient. There are ~500 ingredients available in the game, with a large portion being quite rare. Now... dare to tell me how high the chance for a randomizer would be to allow cheap recipes to now have solely the health (and potentially other positive effects) on it without also creating negative effects on top? Ah yes... quite low? You don't say! For a game-defining mechanic? Untenable. Obviously it's not done. It's once again a completely bonkers example. Please for the love of it... it's beyond ridiculous what you're writing. In VS we have 300000 different combinations. For a SINGLE effect granted by each, randomized. Let that number sink in. 300000 chances to get the right one from a list of... 10....20...60 effects possible. Now let's math it out, should we? Realistically to see what a complete nonsensical argument you wrote there, showcasing it in cold hard numbers with a extremely simplified outcome in your favor, masisvely so. In VS we got 'basic cooking','meals' and 'baking'. This means nigh every ingredient provides directly at least a single edible outcome by itself. And we got 6 meal types. Meat stew, veggie stew, porridge, soup, scrambled eggs and jam. Meat stew is based on 2 meat Veggie stew on 2 veggies Porridge on 2 grain Soup on 1 beggie + water Scrambled eggs on 2 eggs Jam on 2 fruit + 2 honey. So we remove for simplicity sake to show actual access 'Jam' and 'Scrambled eggs' from the list, neither honey nor eggs are 'readily available', they absolutely are... but it takes a miniscule amount of effort at least to have, so we ignore it already. Just to put it into your favor even more, which will happen even more along the way. That leaves the basis of 'Meat', 'Veggie', 'Grain', 'Veggie+water' for our 'reasonable example'. Reasonably we have access to bushmeat and meat, not taking poultry or fish into consideration. So 2 proteins. Reasonably we have access to 3 grains. Reasonably we have access to 3 veggie types. Reasonably we have access to 4 fruit types from trees. Reasonably we have access to 3 berry types. Reasonably we have access to at least 4 mushroom types. We have access to water. So basic options: 17 options. We math it out via a 'random selection from a pool' and the relevant chance to miss any pool-part (hence any buff). The formula for that is: ( 1 - 1/N)^k N = buff options k = food options So that means our chance to not have one is: 10 buffs: 16,67% 20 buffs: 41,81% 60 buffs: 75,23% So... untenable! So next step, how many actual meal combinations do we have? This is baseline option + (baseline option + every possible addition) + (baseline option + every possible addition x every possible addition). Meat stew: 1 + (1 + (7 [fruit+berry] + 7 [veggie+mushrooms] + 1 [extra meat]) + (1 + 15 [every applicable type together] x 14 [cannot use fruit twice]) = 1 + 16 + 211 = 228 options. Veggie stew: 1 + (1 + 7) + (1 + 7 x7) = 1 + 8 + 50 = 59 options. Porridge: 1 + (1 + 17) + (1 + 17 x 17) = 1 + 18 + 290 = 309 options. Soup: 1 + (1 + 8 ) + (1 + 8 x 7 ) = 1 + 9 + 57 = 67 options. Total: 663 options. Total sum: 17 + 663 = 680 options. 10 buffs: 7.672e-30 % 20 buffs: 7.113e-14 % 60 buffs: 0.00113904 % I think we can ignore the bakery goods, can't we? Hence solely from meals and direct consumption - easily acquirable - and no major progression into the game we have 1 in 878 characters which wouldn't get ANY INDIVIDUAL buff from the applied list of foods possible already. With the highest possible amount of individual buffs for the example. And basically non-existent with 10 simple ones, and also non-existent with 20. It becomes a near statistical impossibility if we add baked goods, drinks, poultry, fish, more variety in terms of access to it before long. The whole argument of 'But someone could miss having one of the buffs available at all' argument is statistically non-existent in VS.

Yes, absolutely so! That was just my suggestion. You've provided a few good ones definitely! The extra complexity of macronutrients, categorization and farm complexity are a few good ones. Albeit the last is to be handled with quite a lot of care, people already struggle a bit with temperature swings and how to handle nutrients with growing time, it's a entry-barrier already that's substantial but inconsequential when understanding the system. As for the rules and safeguards... I would say the safeguard is it being a small buff, something which is nice... but not mandatory and not game-breaking. Percentile increases work fine here overall, like 5% movement, 5% damage and so on. In no stage of the game would they be overpowered at least. That's another nonsensical one right there! It would lead to questions on the forum, Discord or Reddit. Not bug reports, outside of some half-wits, but you cannot make things idiot-proof, an idiot will proof you only that they can be an even bigger one, you can only do reasonably expected measures before anything becomes simply nonsense, in either way. Complaints for sure... but people also complain about bowthorns, the tempering/quenching mechanic, the temperature for farming and nutrients for farming. Complaints come from absolutely any friction-based mechanic without fail, it's a core task to differentiate between reasonable and unreasonable comments there. I don't think with the sheer variety of applicable recipes with meat inside we would see that happening. After all 2 red meat with 2 onions gives in that case a different buff then 3 red meat with 1 onion, which also gives a different one from 2 red meat with 1 onion and 1 carrot. If we solely cut it down to meat/fish and veggy stews in a meal then we have 10 'full' meat stews (3 red, 3 poultry, 3 fish, 1 bushmeat) then from those we get 2 options, a double and a single added ingredient. hence 8 extra ones for veggies for the single ones and 64 for double ones in options. Which is a total of 222 options solely on meat-based meals. That's a lot of options already. Not to speak directly cooked fish and directly cooked redmeat making up 57 extra ones for a total of 279 potential options for a specific outcome. And that's not putting any grain, honey or fruit into consideration. It just won't happen to be so so soooooo unlucky to have this existing. And plainly spoken... if it happens then that's once more a lottery-win, and a grand option to state 'My blackguard is a really picky eater!' The point is that the sheer variety of different meal combinations already existing in the game does remove this risk nigh entirely, it is so large that it solely enhances the variety. Any RNG which has a significantly small percentile basically doesn't exist in a reasonably expected playthrough after all. It's like a spawn-location which starts you in a rocky hole... you won't be able to get out potentially and have to re-make a world, which can happen, but is just so insignificantly rare that it plays no role.

Multiple buffs hence multiple recipes, by default. Also depending on which buff options are picked and their magnitude it means potentially even causing a switch in needed recipe by simply switching to another tool material. Just a matter of how varied it's set up. I just did? As said 'Each gives you a buff specially for only your character... so try it out!' That's literally the answer, and that's EXACTLY what is intended with the suggestion, to have a NON-FIXED outcome, hence a non-solvable progression which keeps replays 'fresh' in that regard. Such systems have been used before in games and they're - unless awfully implemented - commonly a positive aspect. It's not a new invention. And once again, your argument about 'It's just not a satisfying answer' is nonsensical. Once back to the ruins. 'What will I find exactly in there?' will give you the answer 'xyz, but you don't know until you try, so check it out!' is as unsatisfying an answer. So once again... is your argument then also related to ruin loot variety and should that be removed? Because it is an IDENTICAL topic. Also a nonsensical argument, that's not upholding. You get free reign inside a specific framework, that's it, that's all a videogame can provide reasonably. If you want 100% freedom of pure expression then you need to play Pen&Paper and not a videogame, it's simple as that. You can give someone a lot of range... or little range, both types of games absolutely do well, it's just a matter of flavor and nothing else and also that is often different for each respective mechanic in a game individually. Or do you wanna tell me because nobody can choose to be anything else then the pre-made character that's exactly the same as everyone else in Minecraft... everyone does leave Minecraft? There you have exactly '0' baseline choice. You can change your skin, but that's it, and even that wasn't for years in the game, fun addition though. I would really love proper arguments and not nonsense. We got 360k combinations in the system currently. It is a lottery win to not have a single recipe applied to anything reasonable for your character. Will you have something maybe which you need to put effort in to acquire it? Maybe! And plainly spoken once more: So? You're arguing about invested effort and how much would be reasonable. So I can only relate to that: How much effort would be reasonable to get a... for example 5% Movement speed buff for a while? And if it's out of your reach... will you just quit because you can't get it right away or ignore it since it does plainly spoken matter 'jack-shit' if you got it or not? It's a nice extra bonus on top, not a mandatory effect which will fail your gameplay entirely. Then don't. You're writing from a position as if it's mandated. It is not a necessary thing to use, it is not game-breaking, it is a bonus. Plain and simple. That's a given that you need effort to achieve results. If the effort is not worth it you simply don't do it. And for long-term plays in SP or MP servers it is an upside that enhances the experience if used. Nothing more nothing less. I really don't get this doomsday talk as if my suggestion would cause the spontaneous combustion of everything you hold dear in your life. 'Devil's Advocate' only works for 'so far', and it's going beyond the scale of reasonable points quite substantially by now. That's a false generalization if I've ever read one. Do you want to tell me that the crafting system in Path of Exile (which is deemed as the most comprehensive and even best one for a complex Affix system like they got in that genre) to be a negative? What you're talking about is pure gambling mechanics like in Black Desert Online, where mandatory progression is locked behind RNG crafting mechanics that have insignificant success-rate based on already very low acquisition rates, hence stalling progression entirely. This is non-applicable in this case. That's as nonsensical! By the same argument quenching and tempering should be removed RIGHT NOW! Come on... not everything is black&white. 'The dose makes the poison' is a really good saying. A low dose has no effects and hence is wasted time, a normal dose has beneficial effects, a high dose has detrimental ones. That's the basis to go by. You're denying it based on the premise itself, not at the specifics, and that is untenable. Yes, that is also a reasonable solution! The hunger-pause is a positive incentivized effect for the player, it reduces resource-usage, especially so in the beginning to mid-game very important. We just don't have anything upholding after you pass mid-game and are properly settled food-wise. Overall a good suggestion which you provided beyond that! Very much in favor there.

Currently it's 'Pick that ONE recipe which is easiest'. The difference is that at minimum then it is 'Pick the SEVERAL recipes which are easiest'. I would argue that's an improvement to the existing situation in pushing people to use variety rather then a single dish over and over. This is a friction mechanic with a reward at the end. The recipe finding is the friction. The reward is the buff. That's how incentive systems work, you gotta put in effort to get result, they don't just get thrown at you inherently. As for answering new players: The explanation: 'Every food you consume has a buff attached, they're unique for your character what you get. Test around!' Because that's precisely what it is, a system that pushes experimentation instead of mindless repetition with a pre-solved equation you can simply look up. That's a fair point, but also not. Have you ever 'chosen' to like specific things in life? I didn't, I like them because that's what I'm simply. Nobody 'chooses' to like or dislike specific foods, that's not in your control anyway. And even if we say 'I wanna choose it'. Sure! No issue there! But that's a follow-up thing and not baseline for the system. Another one on top which allows re-rolling the buff type something gives... or even target a specific one. Obviously powerful to target things like that and hence necessary to be respectively bothersome to set up, but absolutely possible. Automatically applied multiplier according to baseline hunger rate changes. So someone with 25% hunger rate gets 4 times the result per calory. Also another metric which can be chosen during world-gen or changed with a command simply. Don't see an issue there. Nope. You need calories you get the buff. Otherwise not. Overeating is not a thing. The VAST majority of players I see playing are regularly reaching starvation, it's not a 'I need to burn extra colaries' thing. It's further incentive to keep track of the hunger bar simply, with positive effects for doing so instead of the absolute miniscule starvation damage and annoyance of the sound you get. And your examples also absolutely don't reflect the reality of the VS situation. You wanna tell me it would push people into 'randomly running around to burn calories'? That's plainly spoken not a thing. Sure... someone can do that but to what effect? You waste time, you do nothing, it is wasteful and boring, and the system doesn't even incentivize doing THAT. What it does incentivize though is proper preparation for specific tasks which are included inside the system, hence making them more effective... but not necessitating it. So what to do in the meanwhile? How about pottery? Grass collecting? Harvesting? Cooking? Sorting through your storage? Sifting? Smithing? Building? As a few examples which make no sense to be reasonably affected by the buff-range anyway. RNG is a tool, not a menace. Any system based on RNG is a luck-based system by design obviously. You can have a great outcome right away, or not. What RNG in such a case provides is variety, hence making playthroughs feel substantially different. Also the scale of the RNG used in this case isn't supposed to be massive anyway, hence a 'nice to have' but not a 'must do it' aspect. Incentive plain and simple. Not necessity. That's important to take into consideration. If your argument would uphold then this would mean ruins should also have static and fixed loot without any variance, because that also is RNG, and it also 'brings the player to do something', namely searching for more then a single instance of a specific type of ruin. The current food system has also several HUNDRED THOUSAND combinations. I think if you use AI it gives you 360000 options the system as total? If we take this number at face value then even if we seed it with 60 different buff options (which is a quite decent amount I would say) it still leads to 6000 combinations providing you with your specific buff result, only increasing with every single mod introducing consumables providing nutrition on top of that, as well as every single addition of variety for food creation in the future. This leads to a relatively easy (but not inconsequential) find of a buff, allowing you to have the upsides relatively early on, even if infrequent. Min-max though does lead to larger-scale experimentation and: Exactly this part becoming a challenge to overcome and not something to universally ignore. Once again a difference in SP and MP here. For MP it pushes to spread out over respective distances and improving trade relations. Those turnips and those peanuts suddenly have relevancy outside of 'they're a source in this area'. For SP it does primarily work in favor of long-term worlds with exploration focus. Yes, finding those translocator routes and actually connecting them with easily traversible options makes suddenly sense outside of 'I get teleported into material I searched for out of sheer luck'. The same argument is once again easily applicable to ruin loot. Is the variety in ruin loot leading to confusion, tedium and frustration for not finding the things you desire in the first you find? Or is it an incentive? Friction is not an enemy to defeat, it's a thing to manage. Friction is an obstacle to overcome, properly designed friction causes a feeling of success. A feeling of success is literally fun. Any game which has no barriers to overcome is not used as it provides no fun, that's a universal rule. Even in idle-games overcoming hurdles is to increase returns by spending the least amount of time possible... or to overcome the sheer amount of needed time to reach the results one wants. Time is the hurdle to overcome hence. So no, that's as a universal argument also not reasonable to make. Whichever you think best? You're already providing literally multiple options which cause a decision-making tree which puts the player into a position to think about their actions forward. Make a second base. Either give up the former one or connect them. Search actively for translocators and make them accessible if leading into a positive direction, incentivizing infrastructure to be built and hence increasing the scale of what can be done before becoming solely 'vanity' for creativity's sake. I really don't see how that wouldn't incentivize it, quite the contrary from what you state there even. There's clearly a LOT of different types of incentive in that part alone. Well... and how do you think the system decides on said name? There is a system hence available which discerns between '2 pieces of red meat' and '3 pieces of red meat' stew already. So each of them is for the system 'a separate entity'. You don't make 'stew with x calories and x nutrients' simply... you make a 'hearty red meat stew' which tells you precisely how many items and which materials have been used. Hence 4 items, all red meat, hence creating the respective nutrients nd the calories from it as the system tracks the input to a degree this way. The addition of attaching a randomized buff to the generated name-tag is really not such a big thing. As much as I know this has been shot down already, and for a very viable reason as well: The start is when you're struggling for calories, so a system PUNISHING (the opposite of incentive) would cause by far more tedium and frustration then any incentive system ever could do. Not to speak of it being unfeasable and enforcing very early-game hunting without protection to be done which leads to a rise in player deaths and ultimately the frustrations spiking out of control leaving to quitting the game entirely. So, no help to increase it from 'one dish' to 'two dishes'? That's a 100% increase in variety over the existing situation already. Have 10 viable buff options available one could reasonable want and you increase it to 'ten dishes'. What's the exact viable cutoff point for variety numerically? 2? 5? 10? 100? 1000? VS starts off as a survival wilderness experience. It turns into a homesteading experience though over the duration of the game, is also a exploration game on top of that. You cannot ignore those aspects entirely and then focus on the one which upholds the argument only. You go in VS from survival to turning to comfort. That's the whole point of doing stuff after all... to not struggle but instead have abundance and no worries. So... what to do when you have comfort? You wanna increase that comfort, right? Does a buff for movement speed increase your comfort when walking distances? Does a boff in mining speed increase your comfort when mining? Does a buff in woodcutting speed increase your comfort when foresting? I think it does perfectly what you talk about, turning a struggle into comfort if you're willing to invest the effort to achieve it. You only gotta weight if the effort is worth the results. What? That's unreasonable as well. The baseline is 'I don't have the buff available to me', so it makes exactly ZERO difference to currently now, does it? If a early food type provides a good fitting buff you need... then great! All the better! Lucky you! It's like having a ruin with copper chunks right at the surface close to your chosen building spot and being able to start off smithing respectively quicker. You don't expect to have it every time, do you? But it's nice to have happen. What's the downside here specifically? Why do we even need to specifically define that in the first place? That's what an INCENTIVE is for, isn't it? People don't make pies because they're 'fancy', they make em because of the materials used being either long-lasting (grain + veggies or fruit over time) or with husbandry readily available (red meat). That's also the reason why few players deal with fishing, high investment in effort for quite low return and hefty time investment. Or why basically nobody makes jam or scrambled eggs, it's just not worth the effort for the results. That's the issue with any system that doesn't provide high enough incentive to use it, it's foregone in favor of efficiency, especially in SP as there is commonly a much lower RP aspect to it then in MP. But if your cooked fish of a specific type suddenly provides a buff which you like and is really well rolled in efficiency as well? Now suddenly fishing becomes a thing with value attached to it, one it formerly didn't have. And if your meat pie has a bad buff you don't need attached to it? You'll forego it in favor of something harder to acquire. And when it has a good buff? Lucky you simply! It increases the variety substantially, that's all it does. So a 'well established homeowner' is then someone who's found working good combinations for the things they wanna do regularly. Currently after the initial setup of your fields and a dirt hovel with some metal your only limiting factor in the game is armor quality (to survive combat), weapon quality (to not need as much armor quality) and tool quality. You can still be in a dirt hovel with a few oil lamps by the time you make steel as NOTHING outside of personal enjoyment of creativity and vanity rewards you for doing so. That brings me back to the Valheim example being given above: That game provided one of the first systems for making food buffs, though in that game it is directly tied to progression, a MANDATORY necessity, not a convenience to get ahead. Same with the housing, causing items to imrove the 'Comfort' level and hence improving your 'Rested' bonus. There the systems were rather rudimentary, but since then they've been substantially improved and adapted into other games for a reason. A system rewarding you for using different food types gives incentive to use different ones and can be introduced without ENFORCING it for necessity. That's a major important difference. And a rested bonus for example (Max health for a while, health regen increase too) with a home that has a nice interior and is made out of proper materials rather then dirt incentivizes to create such structures and leads to the creation of outposts on top... which can grow into new bases, which goes well into connecting them for easier traversal with roads or specifically making them around the translocator network. INCENTIVE is good, NECESSITY is not. That's the core difference here.

Ah, I think the part about the RNG for effectiveness has been badly communicated by me here. What I meant with it is not a change in effectiveness every time you use it, it's a difference in effectiveness 'per recipe'. So we imagine 'stew with 2 red meat' provides a movement speed increase, 5% baseline value (as example) for that one... but it only provides 3% as it rolled bad. On the other hand 'carrot pie' does provide 7% movement speed. Same buff different effect. This incentivizes trying out new combinations even when you've found a fitting recipe, be it for a better effect or to get a more simple one with it. I agree with you 100% that simply randomized effect effectiveness would feel bad, that's not a fun mechanic. RNG exists to provide variance where variance matters, not to ruin your day with a sudden low roll. I recommend looking up the food system in 'Wurm Online' in that case for a better showcase then my simple description here. As for why exactly it does provide a upside: - Since it's not a fixed system but based on the character, hence causing a different seed to be generated every time you play any new world will cause the 'search' for proper recipes anew. This means while when you've found a fitting recipe for a specific task you'll focus on that one that during the search process you need to gather a variety of ingredients which increases the different created recipes quite a lot rather then focusing on one permanent method staying always the same. - Once again, since the seed is different for every character this has especially in MP a vast effect, permanently. As every single player has their respective buff at other recipes it causes the cook of an inn for example to need to store a vastly larger variety of consumables, there alone it provides a substantial upside. - Many players generally lean towards making pie as time goes on. It allows meat and vegetables to be included as well as improving the nutrition of flax grains - which are otherwise very bad - substantially. If that results in a awful buff out of bad luck though then it's likely to gravitate to something else. - Depending on which buffs are used it can have significant effects long-term. Usually players lean to a single food-type in non-combat situations (and many even otherwise since they don't bother) which can be counteracted. Mining/Digging speed increase with a specific food? When terraforming you absolutely want that, even if the recipe for it is not the most easiest to achieve. Damage reduction before a temporal storm? Absolutely so. Movement speed when going for exploration? Can help quite a lot to reduce time needed for travel. Damage buff for your currently used weapon? Before spelunking or doing one of the story areas it's definitely a major upside. And so on and so forth. This is specifically to NOT cause a inherent 'this food is automatically better then any other'. Quite the contrary. When 'solved' it still does push for a MUCH higher variety then currently seen, especially if one wants to maximize effects, hence having to deal with nutrition first and the buff secondly. Plainly spoken: So? It's a incentive, obviously you want to make use of incentives. But they're not mandatory to achieve your goal, you can forego it. You don't need to quenching/tempering... you can absolutely do without! But doing so will increase your results as you get either more use-time out of an item or it does the job better. It needs time and material though... also got a risk attached to it but that's to uphold material balance at large for a non-renewable resource that's usually acquired under mediocre danger (dark caves have drifters after all). So you either got the right stuff and are happy... you take care to get it as you wanna be effective... or you forego it as it's not feasable or you simply can't be bothered. The options are absolutely open. Yes, that's a good question, absolutely so! The first: Food management, if you want to be buffed then handle it properly, a non-mandatory but rewarding usage of not being stuffed to the gills non-stop. The second: Reduction of the time a buff applies. The buff duration can be directly connected to caloric intake simple, this makes it universal an application for any type of food. So cooked bushmeat while not providing much satiation will if you eat enough to fill you up nonetheless provide the respective buff accordingly. You don't get penalized for using it, and also not rewarded. This makes finding appropriate buffs for higher caloric food still good though and doesn't punish using those despite not being able to consume it in full. In summary: It's a system which simply adds another layer of choice. You can forego making a choice, which is more then fine! You either get no effect at all which is useful... or best-case you get a 'lucky hit' anyway as a side-effect. But for everyone who does try to make an active choice it rewards to put in the effort. This is managing your satiety before doing tasks, doing things to reduce your satiety which isn't affected in-between, hence giving an extra incentive to do those before doing something more 'grand' of any kind... and it does reward you accordingly for putting in the effort.

Currently the game has several hundred thousand combinations, which is great... but let's be real here, players generally only use a few and stick with them, making it 'nice to have' but giving no incentive beyond the caloric differences and a HP buff for nutrition types which can easily be interchanged, ultimately leading to a few specific recipes being permanently used on repetition without a reason to divert from it. So my suggestion here: A randomized buff system for meals. This system is one I fondly remember from 'Wurm Online/Wurm Unlimited', though there it was tied to a skill exp buff specifically. How does it function? An seed based on player ID and ID's specified for a food combination. This allows a RNG to set a unique effect only for that player. What effects could be included? A variety, whatever can come up with. Armor boost, resistance to temporal stability, regeneration speed for temporal stability, health regen (mild), health boost, a 'strength' buff doing more damage, optimally specifically tied to a specific weapon made out of a specific material to increase the pool and so on. Want it to be more variety even? The system can also have a RNG attached to effectiveness. A baseline value and adjusting the power of the buff +/- 50% from baseline, hence even when finding a fitting combination of a meal for the specific effect... what would another one do? After all it could be better still. That would be such a hassle to keep track of! True, which leads to a follow-up directly. The 'recipe book'. A character specific part of the handbook which can be searched by effect, every recipe being initially hidden until it is consumed once. That 2 red meat stew for the first meal in a pot? Now it's listed with the effect and power of it. This would substantially increase the incentive - without enforcing to do it - for food variety. It would also elevate the farming of crops which usually aren't accessible in the base-area, as well as foraging for mushrooms becoming a overall positive. And since food is handled via a table simply for the combination ID there's a lot of upward space for variety possible in the future as well as auto-inclusion for every mod-based added consumed item as it introduces a layer of depth to the otherwise fantastic food variety in the game, removing people from endlessly consuming pie and nothing else day in and out.

Yes, there is no need to expand the shelf-life further then it already is. I more meant a immersive integration. Hence keeping the long-lasting aspect existing, maybe increasing the absolute end-result a bit while reducing the result if not the whole range of steps is done. We already cure but salt is a mess to access currently which makes it very untenable to achieve, and salt is not a resource that's hard to acquire in reality if you know what to do. The major reason it was worth so much historically was majorly in africa since water access there is limited. In Europe salt access was initially water evaporization and later salt mines. Still valuable since labor intensive and otherwise only available in miniscule amounts but sufficing for personal usage at least. It also created the word 'salary' hence from the roman word 'salarium' where soldiers were paid in salt (or the value of salt in comparison, we don't know fully) for providing their service. The other parts though are missing, and salt alone doesn't provide such a massive boost to let food last longer. My recommendation hence is reducing the effect of salt substantially, creating a reliable production method through water evaporization (be it fireplace and pot or leaving it exposed in the sun to 'dry' bowls and get a very small amount this way) and adding a official method of smoking since we also now have the beehive kiln which provides a very similar mechanic as what could be used to build a smoking chamber. So my recommendation is having dry-curing from salt available with massive amounts of salt usage but no further process needed or being possible. A alternative option for dry curing with significantly less salt usage (rubbing rather then submerging) for a far less inferior preservation but allowing follow-up methods like dry-storage for mild dehydration which needs actively looking out to not forget it already. Then the smoking process which does need a distinct built setup and large investment in effort. Leading to the best preservation effect possible though. Also wet curing would be a possible solution then for shorter-term preservation which does provide a caloric boost though at the cost of having significantly reduced shelf-life and higher effort needed. Salt is underutilized in the game currently with only halite as a source, but then massive amounts, making it a 'either I have all or none' situation. I simply think that a more gradual system which enforces supply and demand necessities is a viable approach here, making halite a long-lasting source but with a limit and evaporation created miniscule amounts available as a early-game method. Immersion and variety without removing gameplay meaning.

The mod 'Bricklayers' does include a top-tier system for more variety of pottery. I can heavily recommend it. It's good enough to make me wish it to be future vanilla content for most of it. High variety in decorative elements and high variety in needed materials which reduces abundance of some materials quite a lot.

The issue with the primitive Survival mod is that for some eldritch reason I cannot follow it has... well.. eldritch content included in it. Didn't know we had that stuff in primitive times! A vanilla inclusion of meat preservation outside of salt would be highly enjoyed though, actually the 'proper preservation' methodology overall would be fantastic! Meaning a mixture of salt (extractable from the seawater and as a mineral optimally) together with sodium nitrate (curing salt) as well as smoking and drying. Medieval style original cured meats lasted several years after all, in comparison it's absolutely untenable to keep meat long-lasting in the game sadly, you're mandated to live off of husbandry rather then hunting. Actually it would provide a great option to make bush meat into a proper food source, allowing it to be treated and gaining caloric value for it, which would allow it to stay a viable long-term source without setting up husbandry, increasing the potential playstyles without removing the early-game struggles of feeding yourself. I imagine a well-designed immersive option for making long-lasting food is the following: - Curing meat in salt. - Storing it in a root-cellar/pantry to allow the curing process to take place instead of rot. - Followed by smoking it in a smoking chamber, using wood chips/sawdust which could be created as a side-effect of cutting planks with the saw. - Drying it while making sure it's not exposed to rain. Each step improving the lifespan of the meat a bit further. I could imagine the need for meat hooks where individual pieces have to be hanged onto, the process being a lengthy one (in-game day+) where the process is based on how long the smoldering wood is kept 'lit', hence providing smoke and with it the lignines inside the wood.

Ah, that was a bit misunderstood then, but it's a great point to make! We gotta differ between 'mods' and between 'core integration' here. Obviously mods shouldn't be monetized, they're a community service, not a paid position after all. And it's been proven time and time again that free monetization leads to mass-flooding of low quality content. It's a whole different can of worms to open up to make something like this actually functional and reliable, it's obviously not worth it to even suggest as neither are the resources here nor would be the reward reliable for anyone involved. What I talked about was 'core integration'. A modder has the intellectual rights on their created content. Sure, it can only be used in combination with the base product, but the work itself is their intellectual property as it's adding on top of a existing product and hence separate. Hence should the modder allow to have it integrated in the base game on the premise of their code rather then Anego working on a similar design from scratch then the option to allow a 'reward' of some kind should be open. And given a creator has the right to set their own terms of what value their work has it should also be in the hands of the creator to set it accordingly. It's Anego's choice to take the offer or not simply. Example: - Creator makes a mod which provides a functional trading system outside of the auction house, a in-game one. It includes a lot of models, UIs, scripts. Tons of work. - Upon release to the community - a normal mod in the moddb - there's 2 hidden checkboxes and a textbox which only the creator and Anego are able to see. One is 'I'm allowing Anego to use this code for usage in their game and adjusting it freely' and the second is reliant on the first stating 'I'm offering the code free of charge and voiding my rights of intellectual property to Anego'. The free option. The textbox is only relevant when the second box isn't ticked and states 'This is my expected remuneration for providing this the rights to use this code' and allows to input what exactly they would want for it. They can state whatever... and Anego can choose to agree to whatever... or start extra efforts to message the mod creator through that system to make up a alternative deal. It's simply a extra option to allow usage of code without legal issues, because no matter which country if you set the conditions for usage and receive the according remuneration you've rescinded the rights to have any further say about what happens to it related to the game. That's what you get rewarded for after all. One further option is the classic 'open-source' integration model. Basically all that happens is that people have the ability to see the code and can make more in-depth changes to it while Anego still retains rights of intellectual property to it. Hence we got a official branch and changes to the game according to whatever any user wants, the peak culmination of a modding community. A great example on how it works is 'Cataclysm: Dark Days Ahead' actually. A core lead which retains ownership and decides on the direction and a community which can make merge requests to the core game. Mandated code structures to even pass a preemptive check for viability to reduce workload of the company and full choice for the company to use or not use said code going forward. The majority of merger requests commonly done in this case are bugfixes, optimizations and gradual miniscule improvements. And in the game example I made it led to that game being the biggest, most comprehensive and complex game of that type which has ever been seen, with a update speed of commonly 1 successful merger a day median, often more. Most people know the open-source style from Linux where the code foundation is freeware. In our case the code foundation isn't freeware though and hence any type of fork does still provide revenue back to the company or is simply included as a mod. Full development control stays with the company but since people want to have the best possible experience available it leads to a overall superior product over time... agreeing or not agreeing with the development direction. Exactly, modular setups are a necessity basically. Core gameplay can still be adjusted even from input of individuals... but risk is not present this way. And any large-scale not 100% tested aspect is a top-layer mod which can or cannot be integrated into core gradually, or be used as a simple 'extra' in the form of buildings blocks to create your own experience. The current mod setup we have is already supporting that greatly. Workload itself is also adaptable this way to not be overwhelming as it allows removing overhauled systems without major issues while also keeping the possibility for players to keep using the old style in many cases. A big win in terms of player agency. The risks are clear as well, choice paralysis and the necessity for a user-friendly way of adding/removing aspects through a simple but comprehensive way of setting up their game experience. It hence creates work on other areas which usually don't need any work. But the upsides are also quite clear as described above.

Well, the whole system is not quite fleshed out, especially the temporal storms are... problematic. It's clear what's intended, and to a degree it does it actually well. As a beginner the portal storms are a panic moment... until you start to learn how to deal with them at which time they become a pure bother. The same can be said for the rift spawn, both in terms of spawn conditions and frequency. It's 'not quite there' yet, though what exactly it needs is also beyond me. It's design-wise one of the most problematic ones for sure, extremely hard to find the golden middle ground to achieve what is supposed to be achieved but not making it either mundane or simply tedious. As for the bowthorns ans shivers? They were the best additions to the game has had in terms of danger. Normal drifters can be entirely trivialized with a spear, the only danger being the thrown stones and narrow or non-flat areas. Inside of caves they do exactly what they're supposed to do, which is making your life hell and making spelunking extremely risky at the chance of providing serious rewards as translocators and ruins provide a hefty amount of power to the player. As for handling them, the stability mechanic is actually fairly fleshed out, the only things I would love to see is options to improve stability levels permanently as to not have situations where a started build is temporaly stable on one edge only to realize that you're actually at the edge of a temporal unstable surface area. The same with the underground as even significant terraforming which removes large amounts of material and hence causing the player to reach low z levels leads to some... wonky situations. Despite daylight enemies spawn in such deep holes, something which in my opinion shouldn't happen as you're providing direct surface access. But besides that the system is fairly well designed actually for a placeholder one which will likely need substantial changes as the content depth increases even further.

Well, to be fair most of the issues can be circumvented with a opt-in option to allow devs to make use of the mod content to directly fold it into the game or adjust it according to needs, basically creating a form of a 'fork' of it. Simpy described you provide your mod in the mod database and when you do you not only get a baseline document to agree to ensuring the terms are clear but it would also allow to choose if it's free of charge - for those simply wanting to improve the game - or with a custom box to allow describing the expected return of whatever kind. It's then up to the devs to decide if they're willing to do it or not as any weird or outrageous ones can simply be ignored. I imagine the most common would be credits being given, and the baseline that the moment you allow it to be used you loose any form of rights related to returns outside of the initially stated one had you provided them.

Well, that's the thing though... for copper, bismuth/tin bronze or iron it absolutely makes sense to think this way. But what about meteoric iron, black bronze or steel tools as example? Meteoric iron is a fairly limited material, black bronze as well and steel is a hefty time investment to make. Saving up on those is commonly worthwhile. So while niche it definitely has a place, and a very good one as well. You might throw away the materials available in abundance... but keep those and use the inventory space despite it not being 'efficient'. There definitely exists a way to handle that! I would say that 'reforging' can definitely be included in a proper gameplay loop there. Material after all doesn't shear off uniformerly. A hammer head might deform... the handle might break/wear down and even without keeping it completely realistic in terms of material loss (the gameplay loop is to be upheld after all) one thing immediately coming to mind is material purity here. This is a form of mechanic which is introduced in some games already, albeit often unintentionally as a simple 'improvement' mechanic. Metal gets more pure as it's reheated and reforged, removing leftover impurities. Also the grain structure becomes more uniform and hence strenghtened against abrasive treatment. One way to integrate it reasonably would be to reduce the starting durability of tools a bit but instead add the reforging option to not only repair tools but also by adding new material which has been sheared away and the re-heating causing it to become more durable for usage. Hence the favorite top end iron pickaxe used and having gone through several repairs would a bit more durable compared to a 'freshly forged' pickaxe as example. This could improve gameplay loop in several ways actually. For one it allows individual players which struggle with early resource acquisition to reduce the usage of materials a bit, hence reducing the difficulty between stone-age with solely knapping and traversing with your first tools into the copper age a little bit, it's the biggest difficulty spike in the game currently anyway. And secondly it allows to include a baseline reforging option from the get-go. Hence re-heating material, reducing the amount available with the need to add a bit 'fresh' material for the upside of getting a higher max durability out of it. More initial cost for a more comfortable experience simply. I can imagine especially in MP environments this could provide a great upside with any form of trading. Low quality tools versus high quality tools. True, but we gotta see it in the form of a gameplay mechanic. Games aren't perfectly realistic for a reason. Imagine having build a nice little 'village' for yourself with dedicated places for butchery, and inn, a living space, a tannery and so on... all lighted up nicely, with some street lamps. And then you gotta replace those candles over and over and over. That's pure tedium. Nice for a 'realistic' playthrough with several people in MP but a horrible experience for anyone playing SP. The effect doesn't need to be extreme, the whole thing seems more about immersion then functionality after all, and Vintage Story is top-tier when it comes to immersion purposes. It's where it shines after all. There is a reason many people love mods like Bricklayers which builds upon those already immersive mechanics further. Besides mods like Quarry mod which reduces the hassle. One thing I've always found a bit odd for example is the inconvenient way we have to currently quarry for stone blocks. A usage for metal coming to mind right away here would be stonecutting tools. Hence low durability tools which are specifically designed to cut stone into prepared shapes before using a hammer&chisel onto it. Chisels have absolutely insane durability currently as the need it since we adjust whole blocks at once, which have a significant amount of 'voxels' in them after all. One option playing into it right away would be to introduce the ability to not needing to mine under exposed blocks, instead being able to saw it off. Optimally with prepared shapes too. Slabs, pillars, strips, cylinders... that stuff. Simply shapes which make progressing from there substantially easier, allowing chisel durability to be reduced. That alone in combination with the aforementioned reforging mechanics in some form would allow more targeted processing at the cost of storage complexity... or keeping up the ongoing method which means easier storage and less variety but more waste of metal in total. Hence the reforging would counteract reduction of metal usage by re-introducing it in a different form even without significantly extra use-cases for them (like rails, steam machinery or the likes). Also one showcase of a use-case which is in vanilla missing for the time being is 'Cartwright's Caravan'. A similar implementation for transportation in the form of simple hand-drawn carts which could only be reliably moved over roads (getting a severe speed debuff on any off-road block hence) would allow a relatively 'easy' next step for content implementation anyway as it solves several issues at once. For one the metal usage to reduce abundance. Providing a reliable need to actually create long-distance roads, even without creating buildings. Improving long-distance transportation without being reliant on fixed position teleportation entirely.

There currently us no resistance modifier of any kind so you're good to go with that. Also I like the idea of using the raw stone as a building material in this way without being forced to go through the usual quarry method in the game. The only thing to look out for in terms of chiseling is that taking too much material away (which is a bit wonky on the exact limit) can cause it to become a 'non solid' block. This is important for things like enclosed rooms to keep temperature warmer in the winter or to impede waterflow and/or rain. I've yet to find out the exact detail as to when and why this happens exactly, but you can enforce it by making a hole into a side of a block and for example allow water to flow through, similar to a grate or even making it look like a sort of faucet this way. The water flowing out will take up the normal amount of space though, it takes a bit of fiddling aorund to design around this. Another property which happens with chiseled blocks is in relation to dirt. Currently dirt doesn't recover into dirt that has grass (at least the green top-texture) growing on it if made into a chisel-block. Something which I would greatly enjoy to have happening in the future as it would allow detailed landscaping with smooth hills.

Chiseling in VS is amazing, the foundation of it is such a powerful and delightful tool in itself! Though when it comes to repeating tasks for it the system obviously starts to struggle, doing 100 fences in a row is - mildly spoken - tedious. For that QP's Chisel Mod exists, which is by now kinda a 'must have' mod for any playthrough with anyone wanting to use it on any large scale in the game, so that's fine. What I want to suggest though is a addition to allow repeating multi-block designs, so here goes: What if we had a system similar to clayforming/smithing attached to chiseling? The way I imagine it is a method of blueprinting basically. A measuring tool which is to be put at all 8 corners of any design-piece to create said blueprint, optimally with the option to save it as a nameable file (for re-use in new worlds). To built it somewhere else afterwards you have to use those measuring tools again but with the function of creating something, providing a overview with the sizes available and like all other things starting with the bottom left corner. Optimally when opening designs it'll also show a preview of what is picked to allow actually using the right one (a miniaturized visualization in some way maybe?) Going a bit further this can also include a option to exchange specific materials or simply use the 'default' design. Hence a granite statue becoming a sandstone statue instead, with a choice for every materials included to exchange it with something else. As for the building part itself that would be similar to clayforming. Adding it from the ground up layer by layer similar to the method of adding voxels with the chisel itself. This could also include sizeable structures with full blocks included, hence instead of making one add the individual voxels for the next material it instead would ask for the full block to be added in position. This way people would be able to not only keep their creations between servers or worlds, having the option to re-create them without having to fully memorize them (or use developer tools to copy/paste) but also to iterate on already finished designs. A well outfitted chiseled home which can get a version upgrade with more intricate and beautiful designs rather then 'loosing' it whenever a sever shuts down or a old world simply isn't fitting for whatever reason to be kept into a new version. I hope this is a interesting idea and would definitely love to see that in the far future! After all that would be quite the sizeable design to make I imagine.