Byrnorthil

If your hide has successfully cured then it shouldn't turn into rawhide pants at all. It should turn into knee-high fur boots instead. Make sure you've combined the raw bear hide with two rendered fat and waited 48 hours. Once that's done: Place the pelt on the ground with shift-rmb With a knife in your main hand, shift+rmb on the body of the pelt

It's not the only one. There are several nails which can't be used to craft anything except their respective lantern and plaque. Brass is one of those.

documented issue: https://github.com/anegostudios/VintageStory-Issues/issues/9150

I've been doing a lot of theorycrafting and testing on the armor systems in Vintage Story recently. I've redone the shields page on the wiki and intend to do some touch-ups on the armor page soon, after I get in some final testing to confirm my suspicions. Having also recently completed a set of steel plate on my own survival world, I figure I may also write a progression guide to armor here on the forums which hopefully explains some of the less intuitive mechanics more thoroughly than the game does. It was while collecting all this experience and turning it into a working theory that I made an annoying realization: Brigandine helmets suck. Not because they don't do their job, but because it's pretty much never worth making one when you could just make a chain helmet instead. In fact, you might come away after reading this thread asking yourself "why would I make any other helmet when I could just make a chain helmet instead?" Brigandine is the budget armor set. You might think that's what lamellar is for, but lamellar's strength is not that it's cheap, it's that it's easy to make. Metallic lamellar doesn't require leather, and doesn't need a helve hammer to finish in a reasonable amount of time, and I want to say that accessibility puts it in its own space apart from all the other metal armor sets. By contrast, brigandine requires the exact same steps as the other armors, but sets itself apart by being not only very cheap but also very durable, and therefore having a very low upkeep cost. To give some perspective, a set of tin bronze brigandine (1100) has nearly twice the durability of a lamellar set (600). So, once you have the infrastructure set up, a set of brigandine is a much more logical long-term choice, especially in a multiplayer playthrough where outfitting everyone with stronger sets would be prohibitively expensive. It doesn't have the best stats, but it gets the job done and will probably tide you over till you're able to progress to the next tier and/or save up enough for your endgame set. On the exact opposite end of the scale, chain armor has fantastic stats, offering great protection while simultaneously having almost no downsides when worn. When I first started the game and was setting up goals for myself, I questioned why I would ever want any armor set other than chain, and maybe a plate set for spooky times. And then I used it. The answer: chain is very inefficient in terms of ingots per smack. It's much more expensive and time-consuming to craft, while coming with a significant durability penalty. While an iron brigandine set will give you a respectable 50 durability per ingot, chain gives you 20, which is two and a half times worse. In the worst case, a couple of back-to-back encounters with nightmare enemies could leave you tens of ingots down in a matter of minutes. So (with the arguable exception of steel) chainmail is generally not suited for heavy combat situations or for players who get into lots of scuffles, instead being a good catch-all set and the armor of choice for bowmen. So, what exactly is the problem? We have a set that maximizes efficiency at the expense of mobility, and a set that optimizes mobility at the expense of efficiency. Seems like a well-designed tradeoff, and if we stopped here it would be. The problem arises when we stop restricting ourselves to thinking about sets and start thinking about individual armor pieces, allowing ourselves to mix-and-match a more optimal build. The crux of the problem is this: the game is inconsistent with which costs and benefits vary by armor slot. Up-front costs and protective values vary wildly by slot: helmets cost much less than chestpieces, and, even though their DR values might be identical, their actual protective value to the player scales with their coverage (chance to get hit)[cogmind players wya]. In contrast, for reasons I do not understand, armor's downsides when worn do not scale with the slot at all, and armor durability scales in effectively the opposite direction from what it should, with chestpieces literally getting less durability per material used to repair them. Helmets have comparatively bad defense/downside ratios, but pretty much never break and are repaired basically for free if they somehow do. I've made this and that thread talking about these mechanics individually already, but I was motivated to write this one when I realized these mechanics were collapsing interesting choices into brainless optimizations and actively taking away from my enjoyment. You may have noticed that the two attributes which don't scale with armor slot both happen to be the attributes chainmail specializes with. It has terrible durability in exchange for having basically no downside without sacrificing defense. So, what if we craft ourselves a chain helmet? Suddenly chainmail's big weakness is simply no longer relevant. It doesn't matter that your helmet has terrible durability, because a chestplate of the same tier is always going to break first. And because helmets have the same downside multiplier as chestpieces, you get an outsized mobility boost by swapping your hat for chainmail without giving up much in terms of defense (when swapping from scale) or cost (when swapping from brigandine). It's always optimal to have your chestpiece be bulkier and your helmet be lighter. The same logic also applies in the other direction: If you're currently wearing a chain armor set, you can get a sizable durability and defense boost at little cost by swapping your chain chest out for a scale one, or even plate. You can have the best of both cakes, and eat them too. And the interesting tradeoffs between the different sets kind of evaporate away outside of niche use cases. There are a couple of other tangential issues, like the fact that wearing full sets is more aesthetically pleasing and should therefore be usually optimal, or that chain helmets really have no excuse for not costing leather, but imo they don't matter nearly as much as the reality that I don't find the current system to be as interesting as it could be, and is clearly supposed to be. Make brig helms great again!

Pad, as in a laptop trackpad? That's always going to be a rough substitute for a mouse. It's not like you won't be able to play with it, VS isn't a particularly action-heavy game. But, having used laptop trackpads to game with back in the day I can't really say your keybinds are gonna matter all that much. If anything you're technically better at hitting most of the keys since your second hand is always right there at the keyboard. Doing well with a trackpad is mostly gonna come down to practice at the end of the day. If you can get comfortable with moving the mouse and hitting WASD at the same time, you're most of the way there.

This... simply seems to not be the case. Perhaps it used to at one point, but I've tested metallic, wooden, and leather armors in 1.22.2 and all of them have big differences between the percentages granted to helmets, legs, and chestpieces. Helmets consistently get much more durability/material, and since they all have the same max durability that translates to much more percent/material. You misunderstand what I'm asking. A piece of firewood should give much less durability than a piece of steel plate. But the same piece of firewood should give the same durability on a helmet as it does on a chestpiece, rather than twice as much.

This suggestion is closely related to my previous one, but I believe they are separate complaints, and this one is less important, so I've listed them separately. It's my understanding that the downsides of armor are supposed to represent weight and restriction of movement. So, even apart from any gameplay consideration, it is very strange to me that a chestpiece weighing 3-5x as much as your helmet gives exactly the same penalties. In the future perhaps the downsides could be more thoroughly separated (legs primarily restricting movespeed, helmets primarily affecting ranged capabilities, etc.), but I'm not asking for that. I'd simply like to see armor's downsides shifted around a bit to be more in line with the actual benefit each piece gives you. Not necessarily a 1:1 correspondence (would mean chestpieces would contain half of a set's downsides), but in such a way that I'm not strongly encouraged by the mechanics to run mixed armor sets. As the system works right now, it could be considered more or less optimal to always run something like lam-brig-lam or chain-plate-chain to get most of the benefit of bulkier armor without most of the downside.

Currently, every piece of armor in a set has the same durability, despite costing wildly different amounts of material and despite taking damage at drastically different rates. But what is even worse is that repair materials will provide less durability for armor pieces with a higher cost and that already wear out faster. In my experience this typically results in helmets never needing more than one or two lamellar/chain/whatever in repairs, while chestpieces may need a dozen or more dumped into them before they get replaced. I'd greatly appreciate it if two changes were made: Redistribute the base durabilities of the armor pieces to better align with their costs. Much less base durability on helmets, and much more on chestpieces. Rework repair recipes such that each unit of material always gives the same static durability. For example, 1 firewood = 25 durability for all wood lamellar pieces, rather than giving 50 for helmets, 25 for legs, and 20 for chestpieces (which is what it gives now). This would need to come along with a bugfix to the currently broken armor durability behavior and probably some more thorough playtesting to ensure the new system feels balanced.

No, once you've crafted the mold there's no way back. If you misclick your recipe you can immediately hit escape to return the one clay used to start, but once you've placed voxels on the form you can only delete it. Fortunately, you will end up using that helve hammer mold eventually. Even more fortunately, clay isn't a particularly scarce resource once you've found it. So, it should be easy enough to go back to the clay deposit and dig up a few more stacks.

I'd probably just pop into creative mode for a moment and get your original cinnabar back that way. The game is like this sometimes so it's not unfair to rectify this kind of silly mistake as long as you end up having more fun in the end.

I've done some testing and come to more conclusions: First, the durability loss is completely unaffected by the high-tier resistance provided by plate and by the universal-tier resistance provided by "flexible" armors (bear, leather, gambesson). This may or may not be an oversight. Second, the durability loss from a same-tier armor is not equal to incoming damage, it is half incoming damage, exactly the same as if the armor were one tier higher. This is almost certainly a bug. EDIT: Bug report has been filed: https://github.com/anegostudios/VintageStory-Issues/issues/9457

I almost don't want to encourage this, as I want to see a more thorough rework ala MkMoose's thread and I fear a band-aid solution like this would just end up delaying that. But this would be better than how it is now.

Nice work! I knew durability damage was very dependent on tier diff but I didn't know exactly by how much. I'll do some independent testing and see if I can't get the wiki page updated in a few days.