redram

Temporal stability varies randomly in patches. There should me much more temporaly stable areas than not. You may have got unlucky. Bugs are ok to report, but best to do so in discord or github, rather than here. Also best to verify that they occur in vanilla, without mods (mods cause a fair amount of the bugs people report).

"release candidate" 1. We'll go through several release candidates as bugs are ironed out. When it's considered stable, the rc will be dropped and it'll just be straight numbered versions.

Bushmeat is essentially for 'non-farmable' animals. Those that can't be domesticated, and especially aggressive ones. It gives more purpose to domesticated animals. Wolves for instance used to give regular meat. Well, there was no point in farming 'domesticate-able' animals because wolves were just mobile meat lockers that you didn't need to feed or take care of. Over time things have changed a bit in that wolves are harder to kill, and also (at least it seems to me) don't spawn as often or in as many places. But, you also can now suit up in armor that makes you all but immune to them. Some steps forward, some back.

Also, animals that die from a fall (or are killed by other animals) yield less goods than if you kill them personally.

Rock salt spawns in two ways: The 'easiest' to find is the ones that spawn as flat layers in extremely dry areas (deserts mostly). They are 'easiest' with quotes, because you do have to hike down to a hot climate to find deserts - typically I think around 15k blocks south of a normal temperate spawn. Assuming 'realistic' climate setting. If you're in patchy climate, it should be much easier to find. But once there, the salt is sitting in a flat layer right on top of the stone, underneath the dirt/sand/gravel. It's easiest to just walk around and look for it exposed in cliff edges, though I think Tyron may be looking to decrease or maybe eliminate it spawning exposed like that. It's suppose to simulate a dry lake bed, so having it exposed in cliffs isn't really in that theme. Note that these types of deposit are not detectable with the propick. The second type is salt domes. Salt domes areas *can* be detected by propick (they will be "Halite"). Salt domes do not form like normal ore pads. They generate in a column, that spawns in a sedimentary layer, and then cuts through all the stone below - igneous and all - all the way to bedrock. It's easy enough to know where *not* to find them. If you do not have a sedimentary layer that goes down to y90 or so, you will not find them. My impression from my creative tests is that it's probably best if you can find sedimentary that goes down to y50. Remember that sedimentary *only* occurs *above* igneous and metamorphic stones, in the top layer(s). Never below. So in a given area it's easy to tell if there is or is not sedimentary stone. If you can't see sedimentary rocks while just walking around, don't bother looking in that area. If you do have sedimentary stones, check a cave and see how deep the sedimentary goes. If it's below I y90(ish) there's at least some chance. The chances for an individual salt dome to spawn are much, much less than ore pads. But you really only need to find one dome, and you're probably set for life. Salt domes are the only deposit type where horizontal exploratory mining tunnels might be a good idea. Conversely, a technique such as finding the center of the 'ore field' and then blind mining down - which works for many other ores, especially iron - is not a good technique for salt domes. Their chance is so small that the relatively small area of the concentrated center of the ore field will still highly likely be bare. It's probably best to just search caves in the area. I've found domes in 35ppm propick spots, I've found them in .5ppm propick spots. Salt is pretty hard to find, however it's also not really necessary in the single player game either. It's more useful in a multiplayer setting, but in that setting you might also be able to trade for it fairly easily.

Moving a populated skep requires that you free up one of your four container slots - no container there - then scroll over to that slot by holding cntrl (I think) while scrolling. Now right click on populated skep and it should go into that slot. shift-right-click to place.

You can light an entire stack in inventory and place them one by one as now? That's not clear in your OP. How are torches in inventory ignited? You did mention " Unignited and burned out torches can be reignited by right clicking with an ignited torch. ", but I took that to mean in-world, one by one. And why would the player want to ignite a stack at once anyway? The whole stack would immediately start decaying, right?: " Ignited torches decay/burn out even in the inventory, similar to food rotting " Inheriting burn time makes them inferior, especially if you're not micro-managing your primary torch to keep the burn time as fresh as possible, because your 'lighting' torch is constantly decreasing in effectiveness. If you're not micro-managing then they're inheriting a less-than-max burn time. As opposed to just letting the player place them and assume the player lit them while placing (but it is hand-waved), giving them max burn time (no burn time inheritance), which is what I was suggesting. Relighting them in-world refreshing their burn time to max would, I think, be more intuitive from a player standpoint vs them inheriting the burn time of the lighting torch, which makes no sense.

I'm not really a huge fan of the having to light torches after placed thing. To me their primary use is while caving, and having to light each torch as you place it feels like it'd slow down things a lot. I'd rather have them be crafted with stick and grass, with optional improvements such as resin and other substances down the road to increase burn time. Fiddling about with lighting them doesn't sound all that fun to me. I think I'd be ok with them being unignited when crafting them, and you do have to light an initial one - such as in a campfire - but if I have a lit torch or other fire source in inventory, just have any newly placed ones be lit when I place them. And don't inherit burn times. That just makes every subsequent torch less efficient than the last, besides not making any sense.

Wooden cage isn't integrated into any mechanic yet, nor even craftable. It's effectively just scenery right now, like for traders. It's possible it might become a trap in time. Also probably it will be used to transport chickens, I'd guess.

Hmmm, if that's the case that sounds like an oversight. As far as I know these situations are specifically supposed to be there to allow the player to make some money via 'buy low sell high'.

There is another trader who will sell you wolf pups. That's the only way currently. Same with a few other things like cracked loot vessels - you cannot pick up the in-world ones. The only way to make that trade is buy them from one trader and sell them to another. If you do buy a wolf pup, don't ever let it loose, you won't be able to pick it back up, and it'll grow into a normal wolf that wants to kill you.

I think most of those things aren't able to be addressed from the game end of things, in a way consistent with what the game is about. We try to help players with organization as best we can with things like chest labels and little pictures on crocks. And I think bulk storage bins or crates will come in time. But the orgnization is fundamentally the player's responsibility. I don't know how item information would be simplified either. We've already got a pretty good in-game handbook. Granted there could be more pages that describe processes and such, to flesh it out more. Especially for processes like tanning where there's a ton of steps that can be a bit tedious to track down item-by-item, and can be easily confused. The hotbar/inventory/storage movement things does annoy me. Quite often I want to move stuff from my inventory to a container with shift-click, but it prioritizes the hotbar, so I have to fill up the hotbar, the overflow goes into container, then close my inventory, and shift-click the rest out of my hotbar into the container. But, sometimes I might want things to go to hotbar. I'm not sure having an alternate 'shift' key that prioritizes differently would help. Key real estate is already pretty tight, and many in that area aren't very ergonomic. So I don't know if there's a good fix for that either. But it's definitely an annoyance I notice. The issue of limited starting inventory, on the one hand I can see it as necessary for a progression in containers, under the current format. Slots is the only 'bonus' we have. Or can have. It's been suggested that the game should have unlimited slots, and be instead limited by weight and/or size. And I'm not against that idea, but it seems like it'd be a huge code change. Also I'm not sure if there's a practical limit to stack sizes? We do have 128 right now for nuggets, so I guess we can do at least that. I would indeed like for item size and weight to be a thing (regardless of if we have unlimited slots or not), alongside a more intricate system of carry-able containers. You could have things like baskets limited to 5kg and tiny objects, sacks limited to 15kg of small objects, and backpacks that can carry 30kg of up to medium objects. And large objects could be limited to the hotbar. You could make armor more impactful, in terms of carrying a 'spare' set. Right now it only costs 3 slots to carry a suit of heavy armor for intense fights. With a weight system, that armor could weigh a lot, making the carrying of a spare set possibly much less attractive. And in terms of optics, it would help set Vintage Story apart from Minecraft, to have a very different inventory system. On the other hand, it would not be as 'simple' to limit small things like temporal gears, that logically don't weight much. Also, having weights would make the disparity of building materials and dirt having basically no weight more glaring. But, it would also open up possibility for mods to add a more hardcore building material weight standard. It may also actually make the inventory sorting part of 'inventory hell' worse, if we have unlimited slots. But this would depend a lot on the actual weight limit scheme probably. So ya I can see pros and cons. I feel like possibly more pros, but I'm not sure.

@Aira You'll want to search the handbook for "sails", "axle", "gears", and "rotor". Those are the four parts you need. You have to apply the sails in groups of 4 to the rotor (I think you can only craft them in groups of 4 anyway maybe). It would definitely be nice if they all shared a common hidden keyword in the handbook, like 'windmill' or something. Rather than having to search them up individually. I believe the gears have to be flanked by axles that are supported by something solid, iirc. So you can't just make a freestanding windmill of nothing but the parts. They need at least a bit of support.

You're in luck on these two, as it's planned to add seasons and (I think) weather in the next update. Armor was added in the most recent update (1.11) so if you're on that update, you can make armor. Stronger versions of drifters and locusts were also added, though I understand you might be talking about diffent types of stronger enemies. We're getting there at least.

No, currently rope has no use. It's just in assets waiting for a use.

I think the current lack is less a practical matter, and more that the devs didn't want them at this point. Tyron appears to be putting the finishing touches on the playstyles and customization right now, for the 1.11 update. So as I understand it, there will be a couple game modes that probably won't have them, because they're less about survival, but there will then be a "wilderness survival" mode, which will have them, as that mode is focused more on survival aspects of gameplay. That's my understanding anyway.

I guess you know about the peaceful mod, since I think you posted in that topic, but apparently it doesn't work with current version? I can tell you that judging from the devlogs, the next major version of the game looks like it will have an integrated config for peaceful mode. Can't help you with current version though.

Wow that sounds like some seriously bad luck Rhyagelle. There's not a whole lot of point in looking for exposed copper before you have your first tools, since you can't mine it. But that's one nice thing about looking for surface nuggets, you'll get a good idea of what's around you, you'll maybe find ruins with vessels, wild crops, etc. One thing about looking for nuggets, I usually don't bother in areas with tall grass. Tall grass makes it difficult.

@Klaymeench Your first copper can be found one of 3 ways: 1) in ORE loot vessels, found in ruins (not forage, food, etc vessels) 2) pan for copper nuggets using a pan. You need to stand in water, and use the pan on sand/gravel blocks OUTSIDE the water. If the blocks are touching water they'll vanish. 3) look for surface nuggets lying around on top of the ground. NOTE that these nuggets indicate copper ore in the stone close underneath the surface (maybe 2-3 blocks below the top of the stone layer). Make sure to WAYPOINT these locations before taking the nuggets (waypoint add color name). "color" can be just a verbal like 'red', 'blue', 'grey' etc. These waypoints only show up on the main map, and minimap, not in-world.

Metal tiers in theory is an arms race. Higher tier armor has greater damage reduction, but higher tier weapons have greater damage. I don't think there's any reason to give higher metals a bonus *against* armor. The bonus is simply that they do more damage. If you're speaking in terms of the op's original idea that weapons do the same damage at all tiers, Why would they do more damage against an armored opponent than an unarmored one? There's no logical justification for that, and in terms of gameplay I think there's better ways to handle it. Now, you could have some types of armor reduce the damage of blunt weapons *less*. That's kind of like a bonus to blunt weapons, but it's done via the armor. This is what TFC did. It can work, and it can sort or make sense. Or at least serve a gameplay purpose.

Looking nice! Could use some paths maybe, and plants, to give some 'texture' to the in-between-buildings' areas?

I refer you to this update: Obviously there can always be more, but we do have a few already. As for skin customization, I too hope we'll have that someday. With the recent addition of sub-parenting parts, it would seem like it'd now be possible to add a lot of different hairstyles at least, for player customization.

Realistically speaking a blunt weapon would be the least damaged of all weapons. They're more durable, hence my suggestion earlier. Bypassing armor more effectively is also not very realistic for blunt weapons, imo. I think they would have been the least effective at that. I think historically their main advantage was that they were easy and cheap to make, and probably took a lot less skill to use that most other weapons, I'd imagine. Both features kind of hard to translate into VS without some major changes to manufacture of bladed weapons. Now I'll be the first to say gameplay>realism/believability, but I think we can have both in this case.

I like they way you're thinking Theishiopian. I myself was proposing a 'tier vs tier' system where the damage reduction depended on the relative tiers of the weapon and the armor. part of that system was that a given weapon type does the same base damage for all metals. But the amount that gets through depends on whether the targeted armor is lower or higher in tier. I ran some numbers on it though and I don't think it's necessarily good for primary damage reduction. It'd still work for some secondary factors. The level weapon damage is probably great for a fighting game, but I'd say VS is more about tiering up in metal, and it'll help if the systems support that. I'm not sure if durability alone would be enough or not. I think it would be good if there were still some tier vs. tier effects - but not the primary reduction. For instance, attacking a higher tier armor could degrade the weapon faster. If the tiers are the same, 1:1. If the armor is one tier higher, maybe the weapon loses twice the durability it would have. two tiers higher? 4x, etc. In that fashion your weapon swiftly will break if you're constantly using it against higher tier armored opponents. The converse might also be true of course; armor that is lower tier than the attacking weapon might take extra damage. One must keep in mind though that mobs do not have the same concerns as players, so having it work in reverse may not really be good. There's other ways to bring the tiers into play as well. Part of what plays into that though is what kind of enemy gradient the game gets. Animals would all be pretty low tier, so no real incentive to tier up beyond copper, aside form straight durability. It's still not clear to me how the enemy difficulty curve will work, and how necessary it will be to climb it. As for sharpening, you're quite correct that it doesn't make sense for blunt weapons. That's why in the original proposals I suggested to have 'weapon repair kits', not "sharpening" stones. Keep it generic. However I could also see it perhaps working such that sharpening your weapon gives it X bonus damage for Y hits. Like maybe .5 extra damage for 20 hits. But there's a trade-off, in that you degrade the durability of the weapon when you do that. In this way sharpening becomes an optional bonus task, not an annoying maintenance nuisance. And moreover, the fact that blunt weapons can't be sharpened isn't that big a deal. Because sharpening also has a drawback. You could have a portable sharpening stone which damages the weapon a lot, and a non-portable grindstone that damages it less. Blunt weapons might make up for the non-sharpen-ability by having more durability overall vs edged weapons. You'd perhaps only sharpen your weapon when you're going to fight a boss mob or something, not for fighting common wolves and such. Framing it as a bonus enhancement, rather than a chore to avoid penalties, could make it tolerable I think.

Stamina in relation to running might be a lot more tolerable if we had horses.