Content: Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Background: Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Pattern: Blank Waves Notes Sharp Wood Rockface Leather Honey Vertical Triangles
Welcome to TerraFirmaCraft Forums

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

  • Announcements

    • Dries007

      ATTENTION Forum Database Breach   03/04/2019

      There has been a breach of our database. Please make sure you change your password (use a password manager, like Lastpass).
      If you used this password anywhere else, change that too! The passwords themselves are stored hashed, but may old accounts still had old, insecure (by today's standards) hashes from back when they where created. This means they can be "cracked" more easily. Other leaked information includes: email, IP, account name.
      I'm trying my best to find out more and keep everyone up to date. Discord ( is the best option for up to date news and questions. I'm sorry for this, but the damage has been done. All I can do is try to make sure it doesn't happen again.
    • Claycorp

      This forum is now READ ONLY!   01/20/2020

      As of this post and forever into the future this forum has been put into READ ONLY MODE. There will be no new posts! A replacement is coming SoonTM . If you wish to stay up-to-date on whats going on or post your content. Please use the Discord or Sub-Reddit until the new forums are running.

      Any questions or comments can be directed to Claycorp on either platform.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Andeerz

  1. Ok... so maybe I'm not done yet... This is something I like discussing.Ultimately, I think that the 3rd party mods you mention, as good as they are, are band-aids. They make the act of looking up external information less inconvenient and take away less from gameplay. But they don't make it any less necessary and do nothing to make recipes and game mechanics make any more sense or more believable. Whether or not this is a good, neutral, or bad thing is a matter of opinion (and I think it is bad). If anyone cares to read why I think this, then look here. In what I consider to be an ideal game, metagaming and breaking the fourth wall are kept to an absolute minimum. Ideally, all one needs to know to be able to begin playing the game and learn all other aspects of it (including basic controls) is pressing a few obvious buttons within the full setting of the game, not requiring any departure from immersion in the game experience (no tutorials, hint boxes, etc.). In other words, ideally, one should be able to learn to do anything in the game through simple observation and logical interaction with the environment using basic everyday knowledge. An excellent example of this is Megaman X (which admittedly is a MUCH simpler game than Minecraft, let alone any sandbox/survival game... but, still). All you need to do is press right at the beginning, and the rest comes through interaction with the environment with minimal trial and error with the limited number of buttons on the control pad, all while staying within the game and advancing meaningfully through it!Now let's take TFC. Let's pretend you are completely naive to TFC and minecraft, and only know the basic controls. It is immediately obvious that the goal is to survive by maintaining HP, hunger, and thirst meters at optimal levels. And pretty much anyone would immediately gather that fire, water, food, and shelter are necessary for this. And one will quickly find out that there are hostile creatures that need to be avoided. And by just simply moving around and clicking to punch things in the environment and interacting with the crafting grid, sometimes you can get food and water and pick up rocks and dirt, make cobblestone, and place cobblestone and dirt with limited success. So far, this is fantastic! But that and forging (which for the most part I think is quite nicely done!!!) is just about all in TFC that a player can learn on their own barring a few accidental clicks to make a firestarter in the crafting grid, or to access the knapping interface and using trial and error to figure out how to make simple tools after finding out the crafting grid doesn't work with rocks for this purpose.After that, you need to be told how to do things outside of the game's setting (whether it be by third party mods or a wiki or something) to do just about anything else you may think to do... unless you are content with brute-force trial-and-error with no rhyme or reason. There are few additional things that can be readily discovered through simple observation and logical interaction with the environment using basic knowledge . This is absolutely tragic, in my opinion, and is poor game design! Sure, the wiki, NEI, and those other mods exist that help out, but they are simply band-aids. I am not convinced that it isn't feasible (but, difficult? yes!), even for a sandbox survival game with crafting. What makes you think so? But, let's say I agree that it isn't. It still doesn't change that (at least in my opinion) it is at least not ideal to have to separate yourself from playing the game and have to look things up to do stuff. And it doesn't change the fact that it isn't one thing, but many many things you need to look up to do a lot of what you can do in TFC, and that, regardless of having to look stuff up, some of the recipes for things don't make sense within the context of the game's setting and the information the game conveys to you, or at least are not at all obvious/logical regardless of specialized real-life knowledge (i.e. bronze bloomeries). In any case, in this game's current iteration, those grade schoolers (and ANYONE who plays this game for that matter) still need help (in the form of 3rd party mod or wiki or let's play, or what-have-you) to progress in metal-working technology regardless of its historical/real-life accuracy or inaccuracy. Knowing what I know is completely besides the point. And no one is learning anything (at least nothing accurate) about the history of metal use in the current system, to be sure. Not that this is an objective of the game.However, I do think it is feasible to make a system intuitive enough that whatever metallurgy system (or any aspect of the game), regardless of historical/real-life accuracy or inaccuracy, can be figured out just through simple observation and interaction with the environment, even by grade schoolers.
  2. Yes. But I wonder if these material bottlenecks couldn't be more logical and intuitive. And is it really that important that progression in metal use apes history? Do we really need to have bronze and copper in this case? Why not have iron be the tier one metal and have additional made-up alloys or metals or what have you? This way whatever forced progression there is could actually make some sort of sense.Right now the material requirements that force the bottleneck make little logical sense, even if we ignore realism and history. One can melt bronze at a rather low temperature, much lower than what is achieved in a bloomery. So there is not much logic behind why a bloomery block would make sense with the current recipe. Nor does the blast furnace configuration make much sense for similar reasons. However, I am at a loss as to how to replace these bottlenecks while keeping progression as slow as it is now...The anvil requirements, on the other hand, make some sense, I guess, and are an intuitive thing for a player to follow regardless of what prior knowledge they have. But that is not a very big bottleneck on its own. This also highlights an issue I have with the crafting system in general which might be best mentioned in another thread: you NEED the wiki or some metagamey mod like NEI to figure out most recipes and game mechanics in this mod, more so than even in vanilla Minecraft. Even if the material requirements are intuitive, the placement in the crafting grid often times isn't. And a material you would expect to work in a recipe sometimes doesn't. And there is really no way for me to see how someone in the game could discover many of these recipes and game mechanics on their own. The game is not informationally "self contained" in a manner of speaking in that you cannot really play the game in a fun way without refering to things outside the game. The metal progression stuff is a prime examples of this and is why I have such a big problem with it. It would be nice if, as much as possible, playing the game in a fun way could be doable with only information conveyed entirely within the game. Part of achieving this is making recipes and progression make sense.In any case, I love TFC and am probably not going to belabor this stuff anymore. I think I have said all I can say from this end, and acknowledge that this all boils down to preference in gameplay and design philosophy or whatever. And that this is what add-ons are for.
  3. True, and well said...I will see if I can think of something more along tier-based progression. And perhaps ideas such as mine would be best implemented in an add-on or mod-mod.
  4. You flatter me. But i am not at all an expert and all i did was delve into some of the archaeological literature and an excellent book on the subject. In fact i have never smelted or forged a thing in my life! Some of the things I said are broad generalizations, so they may not be true in some instances. And some of the things i said are contentious still. But i think i am right. What i am trying to say here is that it is not possible to go for a "historical" progression. What we have now forces the use of one metal before another using arbitrary game mechanics completely divorced from anything "historical" and, in my opinion, believability. The "historical" reasons for using copper and bronze before iron seem to have to do with development of technical knowledge more so than development of material technologies different from those needed to smelt copper. I believe it is very likely that throughout the entirety of copper smelting history, smelters quickly found iron to be smeltable as well. Iron ore was almost universally used as a flux for copper smelting and there are some curious artifacts out there that suggest useful iron was occasionally smelted and worled during copper age times. But because of how variable the smelting conditions were for smelting iron ores (and forging iron from said ores), even of ores obviously of the same type, it was extremely difficult to get iron smelting happening to any appreciable amount until well into the bronze age when enough knowledgeable people and resources came together to stably establish techniques and know-how. This is not something that can be modeled in the game plausibly, at least not while keeping things in spirit with what seems to be the vision of the devs for this mod. So, if we want something more believable, we need to think of stuff perhaps akin to what i have suggested. Otherwise, i see no reason to even have copper and bronze at all. Might as well invent more mythical metals. That way arbitrary requirements for making them can more easily be believable.
  5. Storage for big blocks

    Yeah. I completely agree with your last statement, DcNdrew.Also, I tried playing around with limiting myself to just being able to carry a single stack of 16 blocks for the purposes of building stuff, and really, it didn't really make constructing buildings much harder or tedious so long as I kept whatever I stored the blocks in close by. I think even if I limited myself to half of that, it wouldn't have been bad. So, my concerns about storage piles existing with inventory limitations would not be a big deal. However, what quickly became obvious to me gameplay-wise was that IF there were to be strict inventory limitations, in the absence of multiple people helping you out carts would DEFINITELY be needed for any construction task to happen efficiently, and I think building any building would take at least twice as long since storage piles would need to be placed beforehand as part of preparing a construction area and since there would be frequent trips to and from these piles. I will emphasize, though, that it at least wasn't any more of a tedious experience.
  6. Ok... I am posting this mainly for the sake of anyone else who has the same itch as me and the OP of this thread about bloomeries and blast furnaces... The following is a result of intensive reading on the matter, and I am rather confident I correctly interpreted what I researched. I can provide sources if needed, and I assure you they are darned good ones. I do not believe there is any practical way to realistically make the player follow a "progression" from copper to iron use. And this is probably the same conclusion the devs of TFC came to. And here is why. IRL, if you can smelt copper, you can smelt iron using pretty much the same technology with rather simple (though non-immediately-intuitive without modern knowledge of chemistry) tweaks and altered expectations about the final product. And if you can work copper, you can work iron using the same techniques. And in virtually all places where copper alloys are useful structurally, iron can be, too, and is largely superior to copper alloys in terms of strength, durability, sharpness, etc. if we are talking about typical historical bronzes and wrought irons. Only when we are talking about extremely low carbon contents in wrought iron do we see the best bronzes perform better than iron in terms of hardness and strength, and those kinds of wrought irons were very rare (as well as largely undesirable for most applications). So, in response to a previous post... iron did NOT get used after copper because bronze was somehow superior to wrought iron early on. That was likely never true. From what I gather, people generally used copper before iron mainly because copper-containing ores were more obvious (malachite was pretty!), and the smelting and forging processes of copper and its alloys were much more forgiving than those of iron. To get useful iron requires more control over smelting conditions (especially temperature!), with different iron ores (even of the same type differing only in small amounts of impurities!!!) requiring different conditions that could only be determined empirically. There is a fine line between getting slag with any iron being uselessly and inseparably embedded within it, getting useful iron, or getting seemingly useless cast or pig iron (which was virtually impossible to work... unless you REALLY knew what you were doing). In other words, if a neolithic furnace operator finally found out how to get good iron blooms from hematite from a nearby ore vein and taught another furnace operator from a different area how to smelt hematite, if that person used hematite from a different source with the same techniques, it had a good chance of not at all working, yielding only slag or practically useless pig iron, or even yielding wrought iron that was much different in forging and structural qualities. This likely explained why it took so long for iron working to become established in civilization. Also forging iron generally leads to larger loss of metal than copper and bronze since iron needs to be worked hot, often in oxidizing conditions... and there are other differences, but these are probably not relevant. And in general, fuel consumption, achievable furnace temperatures, and ore availability really had little to nothing to do with the relatively late arrival of iron working compared to copper and bronze working for what it is worth. Nor did use of bellows or animal power. So, let's say we make TFC as realistic as possible **in terms of structural and smelting properties of the different metals and their ores** and do away with the bronze and iron requirements for whatever smelting furnaces. Overall, if you know what ores iron comes from and know how to smelt copper, for the purposes of the stuff we use iron for in TFC (swords, hoes, axes, armour, etc.) there is NO need to use copper or bronze. You would want to go straight to iron. For the record, fundamentally speaking with regard to gameplay, I am not at all opposed to this... I don't see much gameplay value (well... really, originality), at least not in this game, in forcing progression through "tiers" of materials that essentially only differ quantitatively and not qualitatively in terms of their utility. Right now, the only things that justify the existence of copper and bronze are just unbelievable and arbitrary recipes for the bloomery and blast furnace blocks, as well as arbitrary requirements for tools of certain tool metals to work this or that metal. Inelegant. I mean, it does extend gameplay considerably, but it feels rather hollow. Perhaps I feel this way simply because I know too much about this stuff from previous real world experiences which spoils things for me... In sum, the only (IMO) practical way to force or encourage progression from copper to bronze to wrought iron is to deviate from realism. However, that might not mean deviating from believability. As I mentioned before, I think the current recipes for the bloomery and blast furnace do not satisfy believability... and IMO, neither do the differentiation between bloomery and blast furnace, and the inability to use bloomeries as smelters for copper ores. I will suggest the following possibilities instead, which could possibly work to encourage copper->bronze->iron progression in some combination in the absence of the balancing mechanisms we have now: Make iron ores much harder to get somehow. Perhaps make copper and alloying elements much more plentiful than iron (I think this is not necessarily unrealistic if certain assumptions are made about the world! In any case, this is believable) On the same vein... make iron be located in stone that is too resilient to be reliably mined using "lower tier" metal or stone tools. This might be too much of a departure from reality for me, though... Make bronze better than wrought iron in terms of base strength and durability values, but perhaps introduce some novel (and realistic) ferrous metallurgy and forging processes that can be used to make wrought iron better than bronze depending on the player's mastery of forging and/or smeltingI have some ideas for this worked out... including a simple way to tie in carbon content to wrought iron with its characteristics (which would obviate making a separate designation for "steel"), and doing things like cementation, decarburization, loss of material during forging, etc... but in its simplest form, just make the positive effects of forging skill or whatever affect wrought iron with greater magnitude than it affects copper or bronze.And perhaps applying the same thing to steel, but make steel's basic qualities as good as bronze or only slightly betterThis simplest form would favor gameplay where forging skill is a main (though soft) bottleneck in "progression", though I could see this being not quite in keeping with the focus of the game. Hmmm...Make copper and bronze able to be cold-forged (i.e. without bringing to "working temp") to a large extent before becoming too brittle to work and needing to be annealed through re-heating (this is realistic... heating to working temp should still make forging the metals easier)This wouldn't affect much, but is a nudge towards copper and bronze use, since working them would require less fuel generallyI have an idea for representing work hardening (which happens as copper and bronze get worked cold)... having the metal working progress bar in the anvil's interface shrink in overall size as the metal is worked more, with this being undone upon annealing. The smaller the overall size of the bar upon completion, the higher the strength but lower the durability (to a point). And (realistically) it makes work hardened metal more likely to break while forging.This again makes the forging skill a bigger factor in progression.Make forging not a lossless processTie temperature of forging of the metal to the how much more it can be forgedFor example, working iron (and copper and bronze to a lesser extent) at high working temperature leads to loss of material through oxidation. Repeated heating and working can eventually lead to too much metal loss to make a complete product. In reality, this is much less of a concern for copper and bronze than for iron, which requires much higher working temps than copper and bronze (which can be cold worked!) and therefore more skill to shape without losing too much metal.This could be represented by having the metal working progress bar in the anvil's interface shrink in overall size depening on how much and how long the metal has been worked at a given temperature. This cannot be undone.Alternatively or additionally, this could be represented by units of metal left in the object being forged. If the amount of metal units falls below a minimum, the object is lost (though maybe recoverable as an unshaped ingot or scrap?)Ultimately, this makes copper and bronze easier to work with and (for the inexperienced) much more efficient to use since these materials lose a lot less metal while being forged, and virtually no metal while casting. If loss of metal extends to the refinement process of iron blooms (which would be realistic and would further boost the importance of forging skill), this would further increase the relative utility of copper and bronze early on.This again makes forging skill likely a bigger factor in progressionMake the walls of the bloomeries (and blast furnaces, if the devs are insistent on them) able to become fatigued and destroyed depending on temperature and length of use, and making different blocks of different materials have different abilities to resist thisEssentially this is introducing durability to the structural blocks of bloomeries and blast furnacesPerhaps different kinds of clays with differing refractory properties could be introduced, with fireclay being the best. Using plain stone blocks or clay would be the worst.Combined with the lower temperature required for copper ore smelting than for iron, introducing these new clays and materials with differing refractory properties could favor copper and bronze use until good enough refractory material in enough quantity could be obtained to make smelting furnaces good enough to smelt iron efficiently (as in, you won't have to re-make your furnaces all the time to get large amounts of iron).With this suggestion, the bottleneck in "progression" would be obtaining and making good enough clay... but this already is pretty much a bottleneck, and not a very big one.This isn't a realistic way to balance bronze vs. iron since pretty much the same kinds of refractory technology were used for processing both metals often times. But it seems a lot less arbitrary than the current balancing mechanisms!
  7. Storage for big blocks

    That sounds good provided the balance is such that the amount of big blocks you can carry without help makes it not tedious. I need to think about this more...For example, let's assume there is a weight based inventory limitation system. And say the weight of big blocks like stone bricks or cobblestone are set such that you can only carry a single stack's worth (32) of these big blocks without help. Is it acceptable that even with storage piles of these blocks very near by, during the course of building something like a house, after exhausting those 32 blocks, you would have to go back to a pile to put more in your inventory and repeat the process possibly many times? With those kinds of settings maybe this wouldn't be too tedious.But if the limitations are any more strict than that, I don't know if this would be acceptable, would it? Just trying to play devil's advocate here. And I think in that case a suggestion like mine might be most prudent.In any case, just as others have said, the absolute first thing that needs to happen before this can be considered is getting transport options (carts, wheelbarrows, etc.) implemented somehow in the first place (either through an add-on, or in TFC proper), and then having storage piles for big blocks (again, as an add-on or official feature). Then people can play around with the idea and see what kind of balance is possible and what the gameplay might feel like. Then again, maybe people can already play around with the idea by playing with self-imposed restrictions, and recording an experiment to demonstrate how gameplay would be to the devs.
  8. Storage for big blocks

    Understood. My suggestion was borne out of the concern that if the inventory restrictions are relatively severe (for example, one could only carry realistic amounts of materials, or even ten or a hundred times that which is still orders of magnitude less than what we can carry in tfc now) even with awesome transport options, then I foresee building stuff would become much too tedious since one would have to physically go back and forth between wherever big blocks are stored and where you want to place the blocks. Do you guys see this as a problem like i do? If so, how would you suggest addressing it?
  9. Storage for big blocks

    Hmmmm... I like your idea. But I also like the idea that you need to make the pile yourself. I can't imagine a freshly felled tree forming its own neat log piles on its own. What I would envision is something like this: Say you chop down a tree, take a single or a few logs from the ground and make a pile or a few piles and then as you pick up more logs around the area (like within 25 meters or something) they add to those piles. Also, DcNDrew, what do you think of all of this?
  10. Storage for big blocks

    I disagree. This needs to be as intuitive as possible to the point where people can find this out without having had ever read the wiki, watched a let's play, or anything. A tool to access a pile makes no sense to me.How about this instead, which might address your concern as well as the concern of DcNDrew (this would not require pathfinding or line-of-sight calculations): you must contact the pile first and put the linked stacks from the pile into your inventory and can go anywhere within range of the pile, regardless of line-of-sight. Or perhaps this plus line-of-sight requirement... I think the former is simpler and easier to implement. So, you need to essentially "equip" yourself at a pile and then go to where you want to place blocks. This would abstract out the tedium of needing to go back and forth to a storage pile while keeping the logistical challenge of transporting large amounts of heavy things over larger distances introduced by inventory limits. All while maintaining believability, immersion, and intuitiveness!In order to highlight what stacks in the inventory are linked to a pile, perhaps a highlighted border could be placed around the slots containing those linked stacks.What do you think, guys? Also... perhaps the inverse of this could be used for when picking heavy things up. If there is an appropriate stockpile within range of the player, perhaps stuff picked up of the stockpile type can be put into that stockpile, which virtually maintains the status quo of how things operate when mining, while, again, abstracting out the tedium of needing to go back and forth to a storage pile while keeping the logistical challenge of transporting large amounts of heavy things over larger distances introduced by inventory limits.
  11. Storage for big blocks

    Also, with regard to cobblestone and maybe even brick blocks, perhaps it might make more sense to have those stored in storage piles of stones and bricks respectively instead of completed blocks. When using these storage piles, it would consume stone and brick 4 at a time (as well as mortar from your inventory or another storage pile in the case of bricks) like the recipes in the crafting grid call for and place the cobblestone or brick block. With the latter, this might not be as intuitive as the current crafting grid way of making the blocks. Oh! And I realized something... to remove a possible exploit with my idea, I would make storage piles only accessible if they are within "line-of-sight" (by this, I don't mean you have to be facing it. I mean that there needs to be a clear, uninterrupted path (straight for the sake of simplicity and lag) between you and the storage pile)... so no ability to have a storage pile completely covered in a hidden chamber and being able to access it even though you might be within range.
  12. Storage for big blocks

    Cool thread!If there are going limitations to inventory, say, tied to weight and size of items, I would perhaps suggest the following to keep building things as non-tedious as possible while maintaining believability and the interesting gameplay aspects of having to negotiate the logistics of moving heavy stuff: Allow stacks of "big blocks" to be accessible from nearby storage piles (i.e. log piles) within some distance that can be configured in the config file for the purposes of placement for building as well as re-storage. There would need to be some intuitive interface for this that isn't open to exploit... I haven't thought too hard about this yet... but maybe a separate tab in the inventory screen that shows whatever is nearby and accessible in storage piles. From there, you could put the stack of whatever is in the storage pile into your hotbar or own inventory and that stack would be treated as a special case where it doesn't add to your encumberance, but will disappear from your inventory if you travel out of range of the storage pile. While this storage-pile-linked-stack is in your inventory, it doesn't disappear from the storage pile's inventory, but gets used up as if it was in your own inventory as you place blocks. For example, say there exists an equivalent to log piles but for cobblestone and say there exists some sort of weight-based inventory limitation that makes transporting more than a few cobblestone blocks at a time on your own impossible. Let's also say there exists the ability to use carts and wheelbarrows or something to transport larger amounts more easily. You make cobblestone, transport, and place it in a cobblestone storage pile near a site where you want to build something. In the config file, you have it set so that you can access the cobblestone pile within 75 meters of distance. Whatever stack of building material that is stored in the storage pile within range can be put in the hand and used to build with. If one goes too far away, perhaps the stack would disappear from your inventory automatically if it is of something too big to fit in your own inventory.What do you think? I think this is something that makes the OP's suggestion combined with some of the others here non-tedious!
  13. Vessel-holding limit

    I am in agreement with Bunsan about the limiting factor being the community. However, I do not see inventory capacity limits, even realistic ones, being necessarily incompatible with doing it all yourself, KIngdom building, hoarding type personalities. Look at a game like Project Zomboid, for example. It has fairly realistic inventory capacity, and it is more than possible to "do it all yourself" and hoard. Perhaps "Kingdom building" as it is currently in MC and this mod isn't nearly as easily doable in games like PZ, but I feel that building a believable kingdom (if that matters to people) is impossible with having an inventory system as we have currently in this mod, let alone MC.Inventory management only becomes a grind when the difficulties imposed by such management come with no meaningful, immersive gameplay feature attached to it and highlight the limitations of the game. For example, if we just had limited inventories (via reduced slots in the inventory or altered stack sizes) with no other change to the game as it is now, or even having weight based carrying capacity, it would be a grind. There would be no way to make transporting stuff substantially easier and do so in a non-contrived way... other than maybe those obscenely expensive minecarts and rails... but then you would start asking yourself, why couldn't I just push a larger cart made out of wood without rails? Start adding the ability to have animal-drawn carts, wheelbarrows, etc., (things to craft to make things easier, which is half of what this game is all about, no?!) then I think inventory limitations become a meaningful gameplay feature that many people would still appreciate. It would add some much needed difficulty to survival, in my opinion.Also, Bunsan, sure... Pyr0mrcow could just download those mods you mention. But what mod is there that has carts, barrows, and the like that would make this not a grind that constantly reminds you of the limitations of the game? As for my thoughts about the OP's specific suggestion... I think it is a fantastic idea. I will mention Project Zomboid again. It has a brilliant and elegant inventory system, and it has some stuff implemented similar to your idea. In PZ, you can carry a limited number of supplemental containers with you which effectively reduce the weight of whatever is put within it up to whatever the capacity is of the container. The "slots" the containers can be assigned to include the hands and back. So, if I remember correctly, you can only carry one thing on your back, as well as at least one bag on each hand, and I think maybe a few containers on the body. And you can put containers in containers, but the weight reduction is lost (I think... I know this feature is not exploitable and they figured it out). Also, they really streamlined the system to make inventory management not at all frustrating. It is certainly much less frustrating than things are in this game, not to mention much more robust and future-proof. For example (and this is slightly OT), with the way PZ handles stacking, the problem in TFC about not being able to melt bronze alongside copper and tin in the same crucible is actually solveable without exploit. But that is for another topic...
  14. Make Horses less pointless and cooler

    This is really a nice thread... I would like to emphasize what has only so far been hinted at. If domesticated animals like horses are going to be at all useful as beasts of burden in a believable and gameplay-relevant way (basically being useful for anything other than food like things are now), there need to be alterations to inventory, big time. There is no avoiding this. As things are, you can pretty much carry a mountain in your inventory, making pointless anything like carts (human-powered or otherwise) other than for trivial convenience or cool-factor. If inventory was much more limited, then the use of animal (and/or human) drawn/pushed carriages/carts/sleds would actually be useful! I know people will groan at this, but, frankly, I think this would add an awesome facet to gameplay and survival, not tedium. Just look at other games like Project Zomboid as to how to do this in a (in my opinion) fantastic way! If machinery is ever implemented, perhaps horses and the like can be used to power things (though I can't think of anything machinery would be useful for right now, since human power and time is not fundamentally limiting in anything). For wheels... I love the idea davova had! However, I think metal shouldn't be required. All-wood wagons, chariots, etc. were made to great effect throughout history, though an artificial constraint could be a way to force "tech progression" (as much as I personally hate such material constraints about this mod...). I also love AllenWL's idea about wheels wearing down. That said, I think wear on wheels and other components is what roads should help reduce. Also, I do not think metal wheels should be necessarily better than wooden ones. Wheels were predominantly made of wood because (probably among other things) wood is light, though they could have metal tyers for increasing durability. Thinking a bit further on this... Donutglaze mentioned something about wagons and how to balance them. Perhaps building wagons and carts should follow something similar to Cuchaz's boats mod in terms of having some sort of way of constructing carts of whatever dimensions you want and determining physical characteristics... in this way, things could be balanced in a believable, non-arbitrary way. For example, if you make a big cart, it will have more mass, and therefore require more wheels and animals to move at a given speed with given wear-and-tear. And if you choose to make something out of one material vs. another, it will factor into the wagon's mass among other things, naturally guiding the player to favoring the use of lighter materials in general. (this probably belongs in another thread...)...
  15. Crafting Table 2.0

    I love that stuff can be done on the move (REAL WORLD INTERACTION FOR THE WIN!), but I would love even more a combination of the tools-within-reach idea and the current system. I would suggest that tools within reach, including within the inventory or on a tool rack be indicated in the crafting UI. This would have the added bonus of being compatible with possible future developments involving stationary tools that couldn't be in the inventory like some mechanized sawmill should that ever be implemented. It would also help prevent some conceivable annoyances due to any possible future inventory limitations and help balance that possibility, since one wouldn't have to have tools on their person to do stuff, just proximity to said tools. This all combined (regardless of speculative inventory limitation stuff) would also, I think, lead to the emergent gameplay phenomenon of players naturally wanting to set up a work-space of sorts, which would be non-arbitrary as opposed to needing a "workbench"... much like how the game's metallurgy system does so.
  16. Rings and things: Chainmail armor and related items

    Ooops... brass, not bronze... :3 That is what I was thinking of, I swear! Though... I may have over-stated it, since I'm only aware of it ever being used for trim. But, yeah, fantastic posts, Spineyrequiem! Thanks for the clarification on bronze. You are likely spot on about that... trying to pierce through an overlap would be insane even with the nicest drift. And about the effects of blunt force on maille, I agree it ought to be rubbish against that as you said... I will edit my original posts. I have no idea what I was thinking when writing that. I knew better having had direct experience with maille myself.Oh, also, I am so very very jealous... both of the fact that you get to play at awesome places, and the fact that you have some of the nicest-fitting maille chausses I have ever seen.And perhaps we could brainstorm a bit about the portrayal and use of flexible armours in this game. What do you think about my suggestions? Do they jive well with your experiences in general? In retrospect, I ought to have suggested two layers for the feet, as sabatons were frequently worn over maille, no?Also, with regard to scale armour, perhaps it ought to just be another flavour of chainmaille for the purposes of this game? Perhaps it could trade some piercing resistance for resistance to bludgeoning, though this is really a wild-assed guess. I'd imagine the overlap of the scales would distribute blunt impact much better than rings (which like to leave a nice maille-patterned bruise underneath). Does this seem right? It seems like a nice thing from a gameplay standpoint.With regard to how to make scale and lamellar and costs involved... in your experience is lamellar heavier than an equivalent protection made of larger plates? I could see such armour not taking much more metal to make. And from a gameplay standpoint, perhaps these kinds of armour (and chainmaille as well) ought to be a nice option when flux isn't readily available? Punching small plates can be done from a small sheet (no need to weld!) or cast if not forged. I am not sure flux would be needed for making chainmaille... then again, I have no idea how wrought iron behaves when setting rivets and swaging things shut.Also, I would hope that making scale armour, and chainmaille would take AT LEAST as long as making armour the current way in the game takes.
  17. In build 77, I see that bloomeries and blast furnaces require bronze and wrought iron respectively. So I presume you meant B76 instead of B77. Also, in the previous versions there was no requirement for fireclay. So it was similar to what I was suggesting, but not quite, and I think the requirement of fireclay alone would make it harder (but not near as hard as it is now) to get steel at least as it was back in pre build 77 days. And the time and resource requirements for many reactions as well as the entire pottery system have changed since those early seasons of TerraFirmaCrack you refer to, no?
  18. Rings and things: Chainmail armor and related items

    Thanks. I hate being that guy that starts new topics without looking for old ones, but what you said helps relieve that anxiety.
  19. Rings and things: Chainmail armor and related items

    I think discussion of leather ought to happen in another thread. I will look later to see if I can make a new suggestion I have had on my mind for a while concerning leather and fabric armours or if I should necro an old thread about it.
  20. Rings and things: Chainmail armor and related items

    I see. Hardened leather armour, though, is very robust to all manner of damage. It isn't as protective as steel of equivalent weight in several respects, but think of it like a hard plastic. I guess hardened leather could be worn under chainmaille, but ideally one would wear something a bit more flexible, like buff leather or, better yet, something made of fabric that is lighter and that actually breathes. The give of the chainmaille links and their mass, if over a flexible backing, deaden the impact of anything trying to pierce or cut it and is a big part of what makes it so protective. But if the links are laid out over something too rigid, this feature is lost in large part. Think about it this way... what is harder to cut? A piece of fabric that is pulled taut, or a piece of hanging fabric that can move as you cut it?But for the purposes of this game and the present suggestion, I figure putting chainmaille over something rigid could just behave as if it was under it. I do know it was done on occasion according to effigies and period art. So, I am not sure if it is worth going into too much detail about structural characteristics and protective attributes of armour with regard to what is layerd above or below it. I have a feeling it would enter too much speculative territory that would end up becoming a bit metagamey.
  21. Your impression is sort of correct. I was envisioning the use of people or animals to crank the bellows with greater force, frequency (and through this getting higher temperatures in the furnace) as a possibility, but that the main way would be to use a waterwheel, wind power, or (if steam engines ever get introduced) steam power (this would obviously not be the first way to do it) to drive the needed blast of air into the furnace. All of this would of course require some sort of system of mechanisms to make it in the game as linked to in my post.I think this could lead to my suggestion being balanced (if by balance we mean taking as long to get wrought iron and steel as it does now), but I don't think it would be able to do so alone. The requirements for constructing mechanisms would ultimately be wood or other materials available early on (or at least they should be!!!), so it might not add much more to any construction requirements, though it might be significant if the requirements for building effective waterwheels and windmills require some specialized materials (only if they are believable, of course!!!)... like vegetable or animal fats for lubircation, pitch or tar for sealing water paddles. I really need to look into this... And if there are nuanced requirements for placement of waterwheels and windmills in terms of how strong the water current or wind needs to be to achieve a certain output (thus possibly necessitating something like the Streams addon and that one weather mod bundled with Technofirmacraft), then I am pretty darned confident that the mechanisms might be able to provide a bulk of the balance. However, there is the problem that at the scale this game generally operates (with the exception of huge servers), blast furnaces would probably be the only thing machines would be useful for... that is for another thread, though, and I think that can be addressed. I do think that reasonable time requirements could help in addition to mechanisms (like 3+ hours to smelt ore into a bloom in a bloomery, and 18+ hours to co-fuse pig iron and wrought iron to make steel), but I would not be surprised if even then it wouldn't be able to get the desired balance. The fact that people can carry insane amounts of weight at one time, mine, chop trees, and make a lot of other things quickly, etc. (among a lot of other things), as well as the extremely easy access to ore of smeltable quality (which is guaranteed of all iron ores) make it such that full progress through the game in terms of technology can occur in a matter of a week or two with a few people (provided they know all the necessary recipes, reactions, etc.) even with the oddball material requirements for blast furnaces and bloomeries. I am actually not against being able to build anything no matter how advanced in a short amount of time, nor am I against being able to build anything primitive in a long amount of time, so long as the reasons for this are believable within the context of the game. The bronze and iron requirements for furnace construction are pushing it, though, since I feel that it might be possible that more believable options for balance have yet to be explored... which is why I made my suggestion as it is. I could throw in weight and how the inventory works as well, but that is for another suggestion and I know the dev team has heard enough about it.
  22. Rings and things: Chainmail armor and related items

    Hmmm... I will look into whether backing chainmaille with leather was a common practice (it was, I think, done for pieces covering the neck). But I do know that it was most definitely done with fabric. The underlying fabric would often be a separate garment that wasn't necessarily secured to the chainmaille directly. But I guess we could have discrete leather or fabric-backed chainmaille items. For example, we could combine, say, a chainmaille hauberk with a linen gambeson and get a finished piece of armour to protect the chest.Or... I wonder if there shouldn't be a third layer for "padding" or foundation garments? That might satisfy your concern about chainmaille having some sort of backing. Part of me thinks this might be superfluous, but these foundation garments were not trivial components of armour and represented a significant part of one's protective ensemble both in function and cost. Perhaps a stout linen gambeson or whatever one would want to call it could be worn underneath chainmaille. Such an addition of fabric based defenses in the game would give an additional and meaningful purpose to cloth in the game!!! OR!!! Yet another alternative could be that we keep the armour slots as they are now, but have armour pieces of the same corresponding body part able to be mixed and matched within the crafting grid to create a final composite piece (or "harness") that fits in the slot. The template crafting recipe would call for a optional fabric foundation garment, and up to two (maybe three?) additional armour pieces. I would suggest that only one of the additional armour pieces be allowed to be rigid. These would be combined to make a complete "harness" for that particular body part it is meant to cover, with its protective values taking into account the protective values of the separate pieces alone (either additively or synergistically) as described in one of my previous posts. For example, for the chest, one could combine in the crafting grid a linen gambeson, and one or two chainmaille hauberks. Or two gambesons and one hauberk. Or a gambeson, chainmaille hauberk, and chest plate. Or alternatively, one could just wear either the chest plate or hauberk alone. One would not, however, be able to wear a piece of armour in lieu of an absent foundation garment. For example, one wouldn't be able to wear three hauberks with one of the hauberks taking the place of a foundation garment. I will emphasize, though, that whatever kind of amour system changes happen, weight really ought to play a role eventually and affect some aspect of movement or fatigue or something. For my suggestion, this would give believable and realistic tradeoffs in some armour configurations beyond simply the resource costs. Oh! And with regard to hardened leather... examples abound of chainmaille being worn with (likely) hardened leather pieces over it, though I cannot recall evidence of such hardened pieces being worn under it. That is not to say it wasn't done!So, I could certainly imagine a fully maxed out piece of Blue Steel Scale Mail armour with hardened leather pieces over it and a wool-padded garment underneath it all.Also... I really ought to make a suggestion in a separate thread about leather armour... I have some ideas!
  23. True. Time constraints aren't good as the only bottleneck, particularly if they are too long. BUT!!! I think requirement of mechanization to achieve high temperatures is a believable requirement for making steel. Then again, I can accept that as the game is, making wooden mechanisms probably wouldn't take all that long and increase time and resource investment to get a blast furnace as per my suggestion only marginally.I think it shouldn't be too out-there to have certain recipies call for lengthy times of at least a day to do things. Making charcoal takes 18 in game hours... why shouldn't decarburization of pig iron? Or co-fusion of pig iron and wrought iron? This doesn't just translate to having the player waiting around. I agree that waiting alone is rather poor gameplay. But extended times would translate to requiring more fuel, which could be interesting. There should be a bigger fuel cost for making iron than bronze and copper alloys, as this was one of several crucial factors that generally delayed use of iron in certain cultures as well as the casting of actual steel until well after the Bronze age. I feel this is a more believable way to balance stuff than just arbitrarily adding a metal to a recipe that doesn't make sense. That said, I do accept that it might be impossible to make things balanced as well as they are now by empoying my suggestion no matter how time and fuel requirements are tweaked. Plus... the current fuel requirements from a realism standpoint aren't too far off assuming one unit of iron ore is the same mass as one unit of charcoal.However, there are other factors that could be introduced into the game, though it may risk metallurgy becoming too complicated. Among these is the composition of the iron ores affecting what can be done with them, as well as the effects of different fuels and smelting processes on the results of smelting. For example, the use of coal for smelting iron cannot (at least not easily) yield useful iron or steel, since the introduced sulphur and other impurities make any resulting iron virtually unforgeable. Coke on the other hand burns much more cleanly. As does charcoal. Also, certain iron ores of particular compositions cannot be processed using certain iron and steel-producing techniques. Then there is also the composition of different clays being important for the performance of refractory materials necessary for furnaces. And another possibly relevant factor is the growth rate of trees. It is extremely easy to make a perpetual source of charcoal at the moment with minimal effort. No need to secure new lumber sources. Just plant saplings as you chop down its parent and every 10 in-game days you have forests as good as new and fuel virtually for free. Just a thought...
  24. I am new. And that is interesting that it was removed in B77. I will check that out! However, I wonder if the requirement of mechanized bellows and more extensive smelting times would have changed the balance and actually made these things worth keeping in.
  25. Rings and things: Chainmail armor and related items

    Yeah! With regard to the armour slots, that is pretty much what I was saying.And about scale size, I see what you mean. And I agree with you. I mean, ultimately, size of scales or rings shouldn't matter, as that is too much detail and we shouldn't have to explicitly make 35000 rings for a hauberk or however many thousand scales for this or that armour. I just wanted to point out RL considerations just in case they might be a believable way to balance stuff if they are amenable to gameplay.And Thorin's armour looks a lot like some real armours (with embellishments of course). But, yeah, we don't need to follow what history was like. That said, a lot of armours in (good) fantasy settings like LotR, though they might seem outlandish, did have their real life counterparts, and just about anything you can think of with regard to armour was probably tried. Oh, and sticking metal directly on chainmail was done and it looked pretty wicked!!!