DeanF

No, I have a demanding day job. And I'm probably too old to learn coding- my brain is not plastic enough any more.

No, mine came from knowing ballistics, albeit what I really know is firearms ballistics, but I do know the physics involved. I was completely honest when I explained why I recommended that you ask an AI- I thought that you might find it more convincing than some dude on the internet, and I didn't expect you to constrain the question by specifying kinetic energy. That was a very leading way to phrase the question, especially when you tell the AI that you are in an argument on the internet- it acts as if you want to "win" by making a good argument, not necessarily by being right. Because it is optimized for engagement, so it amplifies pre-existing biases... just like a social media algorithm. But my AI's summary is a pretty good one: And I just thought of a better way to explain the error that you made: We are comparing a thrown spear with a thrust spear. But by just using the simple K.E. equation for both of them you are treating the thrust spear as if the wielder lets go of it at the moment of impact. And that is not the case. It is not a projectile. Calculate the total work instead. That being said, yes, your point about the models used in video games is well taken. But the bottom line remains that a thrust spear should do more "damage" than a thrown one. Vintage Story is not crunching the KE equation- it just has an arbitrary damage number in a file somewhere. But yes, I'm probably being too obsessive about it.

But I'm OCD enough to want the vanilla game to be right, dammit. But I'm aware that's a me problem. I'm still working on myself.

Ah, so yes, you phrased it to get the answer that you wanted! Though it was almost certainly not intentional. I am absolutely not going to assume malintent on your part- that seems very innocent. AIs are not smart- it went straight to the kinetic energy equation because you mentioned it. I had a long learning session with AIs when they first became available, and asked it a lot about itself, and learned how they tend to give people the answer that they want. They are not terribly unlike social media algorithms that way. So as a proof of concept I fed ChatGPT this: Here is the answer: That effectively tells the AI: Use kinetic energy as the criterion Compare two delivery methods under that lens So the model will almost inevitably anchor on: KE=12mv2KE = \tfrac{1}{2}mv^2KE=21mv2 m1m_1m1 m2m_2m2 vvv m1m2 …and then reason: Thrown spear → higher velocity Thrust spear → lower velocity → therefore higher KE for the thrown spear That’s not wrong within that frame. It’s just incomplete. 2) It quietly excludes the actual point of contention Your argument (correctly) lives in: force over time impulse work during penetration continuous vs. one-time energy delivery But the question filters those out by design. An AI will usually not override the user’s chosen metric unless prompted. So it answers: “Which has higher KE?” → thrown spear Instead of: “Which is more effective at delivering force into a target?” → thrust often wins 3) Why that can mislead Kinetic energy is a snapshot at impact, not a full description of what happens next. Two key limitations: (a) KE ignores how energy is delivered Thrown spear: energy delivered in a very short impulse Thrust: energy continues to be added after contact (b) KE ignores force profile Force depends on how quickly momentum changes: F=ΔpΔtF = \frac{\Delta p}{\Delta t}F=ΔtΔp A thrown spear may: have high KE but lose it almost instantly on impact A thrust: may start with lower KE but keeps applying force over time and distance 4) Analogy (more faithful than the knife one) A better comparison than knives is: Hammer strike vs. hydraulic press Hammer: high kinetic energy, very brief impact Press: lower speed, but sustained force → more total work on the material If you only ask “which has more kinetic energy,” the hammer wins. If you ask “which deforms or penetrates more,” the answer can flip. 5) Bottom line Yes, her question biases the answer toward “thrown spear has more KE.” That answer is technically correct but incomplete It does not resolve the real-world effectiveness question, which depends on: impulse sustained force work during penetration control and alignment If you want to pin this down cleanly A more neutral question would be something like: “Which delivers more force into a target and achieves greater penetration: a thrown spear or a hand-thrust spear, and why?” That forces consideration of: KE and impulse and sustained force …and you’ll get a much more balanced (and realistic) answer. You have to be careful about phrasing questions for AI. They can be extremely powerful, but they are also focused and literal. I use OpenEvidence for medical issues, and you have to be careful even with phrasing for such a specialized AI, too. You could potentially claim that I just did the exact same thing- asked a leading question. But I think that I phrased it well. Play around with the AI and see what you think. Ask it a more open question, like mine. Because AIs do tend to give you the answer that you think you already are sure of if you are not careful. So I apologize- that was my fault in directing you to the AI. I also pasted your first AI quote into mine, and got: That’s true—but then it quietly treats them as if they should be compared using the same constraint (initial KE). That’s the flaw. Why it matters Thrown spear: Energy available after impact is capped at initial KE → once it hits, energy only goes down Thrusting spear: Energy is not fixed at impact → work continues to be added during penetration So the statement: “energy is the primary upper bound on mechanical work available at the moment of collision” is only valid for projectiles, not for systems where force continues to be applied. 3) The missing equation (this is the crux) Work during penetration is: W=∫F dxW = \int F \, dxW=∫Fdx A thrown spear: Large FFF, but over very small xxx (it rapidly decelerates) A thrust: Smaller FFF, but over much larger xxx (you keep pushing) That’s the whole game. 4) Why “KE at impact” is not decisive Her AI implicitly assumes: Higher KE → more work → better penetration That only holds if: all energy is actually transferred efficiently, and no additional energy is added afterward Neither is reliably true. Reality: Projectiles often lose energy to: deformation deflection non-ideal angle A thrust can: maintain alignment keep adding energy adapt to resistance in real time So KE is a ceiling for a thrown spear, but only a starting point for a thrust. 5) The “biomechanics limit” argument cuts both ways Her AI says thrust is limited by human strength—which is true. But that doesn’t rescue the conclusion, because: A human can sustain hundreds of newtons over significant distance That can yield comparable or greater total work than a light spear’s KE Example (order-of-magnitude, not cherry-picked): Thrust: 600 N over 0.3 m → W=180W = 180W=180 J Thrown spear: 150 J KE → capped at 150 J total So the thrust can equal or exceed the projectile in total work, despite lower velocity. 6) Where her AI is actually right (and where it isn’t) Correct: These are “different interaction models” Thrown = high velocity, short duration Thrust = lower velocity, sustained force Incorrect implication: It treats those as non-competing, when in practice they are competing on: penetration force delivered to a target lethality / effectiveness And in those domains, sustained force often dominates. 7) The clean rebuttal (short version you can use) If you want something concise to drop into the argument: You’re right that a thrown spear can have higher kinetic energy at impact, and that KE limits the work a projectile can do after release. But that comparison only applies to closed systems. A thrusting spear is an open system—energy is still being added during penetration. The relevant quantity isn’t just KE at impact, it’s total work: W=∫F dxW = \int F\,dxW=∫Fdx. A thrown spear has a fixed energy budget that rapidly dissipates on impact. A thrust can apply force over a much longer distance, adding energy continuously. So higher KE at impact does not imply greater penetration or force delivered overall—it just means a higher initial impulse. Bottom line Her AI gave a physically correct but narrowly framed answer It does not invalidate your argument The real disagreement is about: initial energy (projectile view) vs. energy delivered over time (contact mechanics view) And for spears used at close range, the second is usually the one that actually decides outcomes. I am very confident that I am correct. But at this point we're just posting AIs arguing with one another. I'm ready to bow out if you are.

I mentioned asking ChatGPT because you are clearly entrenched on the subject, and I thought that you might be swayed by an "expert" explanation. There is no way that a thrown spear does more "damage" (whatever that is) than a thrust one. That is so wrong that it hurts my brain. I suspect that you're framing the question to get the answer you want, and it is not intellectually honest to paste a response without including the question asked. So what was the exact phrasing you used? I'll lay my cards on the table, mine was exactly what I said: "Would a thrown spear have more force than one used in the hand?" Very simple, and it got the correct answer. No leading phraseology. And the response that I got was: So what was yours? I'm also honest enough to critique myself: The reason that I said "whatever that is" above is that damage and lethality are not simply a matter of energy application. It gets complicated. (As I said, terminal ballistics is sort of my thing.) The one point where a thrown spear might have an advantage over a thrust one is precisely the short time over which it's smaller energy is applied. That could conceivably lead to better armor penetration in some armors that have a high initial resistance, like plate.

Game balance can indeed be challenging. Yes, it's hard to implement the IRL advantages of some weapons. "Damage" means many things in real life, and that doesn't translate well to a computer game. I grok that. But seeing that thrown spear damage is more than twice thrusting spear damage makes my brain hurt. If we were using an atlatl then maybe that would make some sense. I guess that's just going to have to be my personal headcanon from now on...

We are talking about spears. You just go the physics wrong. Or the physiology, if you want to look at it that way. Yes, throwing around equations from your Physics 101 class always looks convincing. And throwing around terms like "order of magnitude" is icing on the cake. But you need to brush up on concepts like power, impulse, and work as well. And you missed an important point about force, specifically that it is a one-time short-term force application when throwing a spear but more of a prolonged ongoing process with a thrust spear. Terminal ballistics is sort of my thing, and it is a lot more complicated than merely measuring kinetic energy. But using the simple KE=mv^2 kinetic energy equation as a stand in for lethality is a mistake that many others have made, including professionals who should know better, so it is forgivable. A thrown spear is a projectile. Once it leaves the hand it is no longer getting force inputs, and it's impact depends solely upon it's momentum. As you quoted: p = mv Momentum is mass times velocity. When it hits, the spear decelerates over a short time, producing an average force: F = dp/dt Force equals change in momentum over change in time. So the total force is affected by how quickly the spear stops upon impact, and it is going to stop fast, because it has a very limited amount of energy stored in it and no more gets added as it is in flight. In fact air resistance and tumbling are going to reduce it. but a thrusting spear is different- it is still connected to your body, getting constant force inputs. This is where you made your mistake- you computed the energy of a thrust spear as merely it's mass and velocity... and that's wrong, because it is getting ongoing force inputs. It is not just delivering momentum- you are continuously applying force, so it is not limited to the little bit that you gave to the spear when throwing it. A thrust spear does not rely only upon it's own mass and velocity! It gets more. Force is related to impulse: J = Fdt = dp Joules equals force applied over time, which equals change in momentum. That's the whole refutation of what you said, but I can come at the problem in other ways if you like: A thrown spear has a fixed impulse determined before impact, because it had a single short application of force. But a thrust spear can increase impulse during impact because it is still connected to you and you are pushing it. The thrust spear delivers more Joules, not less as you assert! So, for a thrown spear force peaks briefly then drops as it slows, over milliseconds. But with a thrust spear the force is maintained over time. Then, penetration depends upon work done against the target, not just initial energy: W = Fd Work is force times distance. So with a thrust you apply more force over time, unlike a thrown spear. Or think of it this way. F=ma, right? So, would a target get pushed back (accelerated) more by a hit from a blunt spear you threw, or by shoving it hard with your hands with your body weight behind it (shoving being a proxy for how much force over time you could put into a spear thrust)? That is the difference in force application that we are talking about. So: Thrown spear, high velocity, high momentum, but brief impact force, so limited energy delivered. Thrust spear, possibly lower velocity depending upon technique, but continuous force application, so greater sustained force and ultimate energy delivery to the target. Your order of magnitude assessment is backwards. Seriously, ask ChatGPT. Edited because I really needed to cut that textwall down a bit.

My mind boggles that you find the concept gathering grass by hand to be confusing. No controls would change, for instance. And it in fact seems intuitive to me. I tried to gather grass by hand on my first game, and a lot of other naive players will. Several "first time" players in videos that I have since watched also tried to do it. So let them. Heck, it annoys me that I cannot burn my excess thatch roofing.

I don't see supposed the gameplay issue, here. If you don't want it in your inventory- which seems like a much less likely use case than wanting to hand gather it- then you can hit it with a stick or any other non-tool. Or heck, just right-click instead of left. Not hard. So I don't really see a downside to allowing very slow grass collection by hand. I don't need a shovel to pick up sand, gravel, or dirt, and that's much more game-breaking if you ask me. Who can't rip grass out by hand, yet can shove a metric ton of gravel into their inventory by hand in minutes? Imagine it's the middle of a moonless night, you just died and respawned, and you cannot see anything. (Or any other situation where you are in the middle of nowhere without a light source and your knife just broke.) You might not find a stone, and would have a hell of a time knapping it if you did. But you'll find grass, and hopefully a stick, and if you could just hand gather the grass you could make a torch and fire starter... or firepit. And that torch lets you see to bootstrap yourself again, instead of just being completely screwed.

I have read the rebuttals, and I do not find them compelling. No offense meant, but I don't. My counter is this- why not do it this way? All of the proposals thus far for why not ring very hollow to me. Allowing the hand gathering of grass is intuitive, useful, more realistic, presumably simple to implement, and does not in any meaningful way break the progression aspect of the game. A firepit is one of the first things a player makes no matter what, yet it might make a difference for a player at some point (not unlike the antler pick). Its a fun feature that might come up for someone in a fringe situation. And a lot of naive new players are going to try to do it, anyway, since it is so obvious. I did. So did many other "first time" players on videos that I have watched since. So let them. Screaming "No! You must follow the game's planned progression and flint knapping comes before fire!" at them is going to ring hollow and just annoy them. It isn't like how stone comes before copper comes before bronze comes before iron, which I think everyone understands. It's all primitive stuff. Not being able to rip out some grass by hand is actually surprising.

Well, one of us needs to pay better attention in class. Ultimately, it's the same sort of muscles that are imparting the force. A spear does not magically accelerate after it leaves your hand (unless you're throwing it off a cliff). You can thrust it with at least the same force that you can throw it with. And unlike when thrown, if you jab someone with it you can keep shoving with it momentarily to drive it deeper. You can put your body weight behind the strike- not just the weight of the spear. Heck, just ask ChatGPT- "Would a thrown spear have more force than one used in the hand?" (I already checked it, so that I could cite it, so I know how it answered.) You can make thrown spears more powerful with things like an atlatl, since it is a lever, but that isn't what we are talking about. And I never said that javelins are a thing in the game, did I? I said that I had seen them suggested. But, wow, now that you bring it up, javelins with an atlatl would be pretty awesome for the game. Then you could easily justify more thrown damage than thrust damage, and maybe reduce the thrown spear's damage to be closer to it's thrust damage. That sounds like something a Hunter might like to use. You still shouldn't be able to stack javelins like you can arrows, though, or the bow loses it's niche. You should need each in an individual inventory space, like the spears. This is a more lucid argument. But note that I did say "so much less". Two damage versus five seems excessive. Also, I typically argue that reality is already balanced. So games should model it when able and appropriate. VS might be too "simple" of a game to get into weeds like that, though. Heck it doesn't even model inventory weight, let alone how awkward it is to carry a spear through brush. But the reach doesn't strike me as much of a practical advantage in the game. For example I cannot seem to hold off a shiver at a distance with it. I hit them with it, then they move up and hit me before I can attack with it again. If the spear actually held them off, I'd accept this all it easily. Does it need more knockback, then? I suppose that I might just need to git gud, if I'm missing something.

These are used to make gin, nowadays. But the interesting thing about them is that you can still find them on the branch in mid-winter. In fact, it tastes horrible and astringent until after the first frost.

Yes, I generally agree. Boar can certainly be aggressive, but their pursuit distance should be limited since it is defensive. This is unlike wolves whose entire strategy is to harass and run prey into the ground. Not to mention that they are, y'know, actually predators, unlike boar. Heck, for that matter bears aren't endurance hunters, either. Their pursuit distance should be somewhere in-between, but certainly closer to wolves than to boar.

At the very least they could slow you down, in the way that berry bushes do since 1.22.

A point that came up in another thread is that firepits are locked behind stone axes and knives, which does seem wrong. Toolmaking does pre-date the controlled use of fire historically- at least at the hand ax stage- but we're not talking about history, here. We're talking about a survival situation, and you sure as hell can make fire without an axe and a knife. I propose that we should only need sticks to make a firepit, though of course firewood should still work as well. If sticks cannot already be used as fuel, well, they should. And we should probably be able to gather grass by hand, too, although much more slowly. Then firepits are no longer locked behind stone tools, and we could, for example, have things like fire-hardened wood-only javelins. No, none of this is essential. I'm not saying that it is. But sort of like the antler picks that I proposed elsewhere, this would all be very useful for players who want to try challenges, like the folks who do stone-age only games, etc. I could easily see someone wanting to try a jungle start challenge in a flint- and stone-constrained setting, for example.

I have to agree. We should maybe only need sticks to make a firepit. (Can sticks be used as fuel? They should.) And we should probably be able to gather grass by hand, too, although much more slowly. Toolmaking does pre-date the controlled use of fire historically, but we aren't talking about history, here. This is a survival situation, and you sure as hell can make a fire without an axe and a knife!

I really don't think so. Or at least not so much less. It's very counter-intuitive. But on the other hand I saw a javelin suggested as a lower-tier spear, and that might be more justifiable. Specifically, I saw fire-hardened wood-only javelins suggested. These might have better range than a spear, while doing less damage. The only problem with them that I see is that without any sort of weight mechanic in the game, what would be the advantage to a javelin? There would be no point in progressing them to stone, copper, bronze heads, etc. You would just want a spear. So maybe as a very early niche stone-age alternative? EDIT>> So that folks know where I have settled after this long discussion: I suppose that my proposal has solidified to this: Make knockback the spear thrust's niche, and add a Tier to spears when thrown so that they perform better against armor. I'm perfectly ok with the lower damage for spear thrusts if it is truly needed for game balance, but give it something. That something could be a bit of knockback.

Sounds like yet another great argument for letting us mantle up 2 blocks with a jump, as I have advocated elsewhere. (I think that StepUp should be in vanilla as a switch, for 1 block movement.) It would really help with mountaineering, too. My daughter wants to climb some of those huge massifs but she just can't, not without breaking blocks.

I have never seen one. But then, I'm new, and I have never even reached winter yet. Should the game start a little earlier, then, so that there are sheds around?

I don't think that this game needs a huge selection of melee weapons, like some of the weapon mods add. But... My understanding is that the Blackguard Shortsword is an iron age weapon. I'm not sure that it is special enough for a class-locked weapon, though. I would propose that it be open to being made by all classes (and maybe remove the blackening charcoal ingredient). And instead give the Blackguard a class-locked steel-age Longsword. One special thing about a longsword would, of course, be slightly more reach. But more importantly, if you have nothing in your off hand it should do a little more damage too, because you are wielding it with both hands. And if the game is supposed to have a pseudo-European flavor, well, the longsword is the iconic European melee weapon. It is, for instance, the center around which all weapons training revolves in modern HEMA sports.

So what I'm hearing is that antler sheds need to be in the game?

Using vines to make coils of rope is a bit... contrived? We can certainly come up with better ways. So, just limiting myself to sources used in great quantity: How about hemp? Yes, there will be jokes, but it's a great fiber for making rope and cloth. And you can press oil from the seeds, so now that we have linseed and olive oil this could be added. (This is not the same as hash oil, which is made from the flowers.) Add abaca for warmer regions. This is actually a species of banana plant, which is broken for it's fibers. It is often called Manila hemp. It can also be used to make lustrous textiles. Finally jute, also for warm regions. This is a plant from South Asia- principally Bangladesh- that needs a lot of water, and makes great rope. Clothing has been made from it, but was always considered very crude. As an option for early stone-age gameplay, nettle has long been used for it's fibers, and makes excellent cordage. I don't think that it was ever mass manufactured, though.

I see in the release notes that flax/linseed oil and olive oil have been added to the game. Excellent! Presumably, you put these precursors into some sort of press. So how about sun flower oil? Sunflowers are also in the game, and were used to produce oil. Any time that oil is pressed it should also leave cakes, which can be used as animal fodder. Other potential sources to consider adding are sesame oil or canola oil. Canola (also unfortunately called rapeseed) is one of the oldest known vegetable oils. And, ok I'm going to say it- hemp. Yes, there will be jokes, but it's a very useful plant for stone age cultures. Firstly, it is good for making oils. Secondly, it is a great fiber for making rope, and frankly makes a lot more sense than using vines. Hmm... I should start a rope discussion.

Personally I would be fine with four ingredients if the first two didn't have to be the exact same... and in the same amount. You should just be able to plop in four ingredients, and whichever is the largest number becomes the primary one driving what the recipe is called. So if I have 4 fish, 6 turnips, 4 cranberries, and two chanterelles, that's Turnip Stew with Fish and Cranberries, and chanterelle garnish. Etc.

I really like the wood pan idea, though. It is an easy lead-in to a new player learning the game. Because let's face it, Vintage Story is going to attract Minecraft players, and one of the first things they will want is a shovel. So they open the handbook and see the recipe for a shovel- a wooden pan and a stick. Ok, so they follow the link to find out how to make a wooden pan and see that- holy cow, we can pan for minerals? There, they just learned something obscure about the game that would have taken them much longer to stumble upon otherwise.