Diego il Catanico Jr

All this for new arnor and tools?

(  ͡ °  ͜ ʖ  ͡ ° )

Ab

Spam

But the "knapping" way will be worse.

The jugs and vessels will break often and be less capable if knapped and won't have bonuses based on how it was done.

AA

20 hours ago, Konlii said:

How are biomes actually going to work in TFC2? Since they are doing away with the unwieldy and difficult to code biome temperature mechanics of TFC1, my understanding is that each island will be a single temperature "zone" that makes sense for its general latitude.

Does that mean that each island is a single biome, or that each island will have multiple biomes that share a common temperature range?

Either way, the thought of an entire huge desert-based island actually sounds pretty cool if deserts are made more "immersive" as you suggest.

I can imagine some players would relish the challenge of trying to set up their base in the middle of it.

Does actually biome generation depend on sea distance?

Has someone though to a clay working without a pottery wheel for the beginning?

Before pottery wheels were invented, people made circles of clay and put them one over the other to make the vessels...

I don't know if I have been clear...

3 hours ago, Darmo said:

My impression was that a large part of the impetus behind this encumbrance system was to make minecarts useful.  Personally I prefer the size system we have now.  But, if the weights are too much in the final version, someone is going to mod them lower, if they're not made natively configurable.  I don't think most people would argue about weights for armor and weapons and stuff like that.  I think it's when you get into building material that people differ. 

For some, I think they like the idea of building material being an extension of the hardcore-ness of the mod.  They like the idea of realism, and fighting for every jot of progress, right down to the last door and plank.

Others - like me - are more interested in the act of building and design.  I want to do big beautiful projects.  Not huts.  It's already a large amount of work processing the materials to build a big project with, and takes a lot of time.  For those of us who enjoy the act of design and building, having to return to a minecart every fourth block is not going to improve the experience at all. 

It might be that a single config setting would meet most needs.  Perhaps a "builder" setting for those who don't want to be burdened overly much by building material weight - which would allow quantities similar to TFC1 to be carried perhaps.  A "normal" setting with a mid-range weight of building materials.  And a "hardcore" setting with very heavy materials, for the 'realists'.  These settings would alter the weight of logs, planks, cobble, stone, etc.  But not weapons, armor, food, sticks, etc.  That's kind of what I'm hoping for.

Why not weight and size at same time? Perhaps it has to be re-thoug.

It MUST be configurable.

Builder: Similar to TFC1

Normal: Reduced weight carry limit

Hardcore: Reduced weight carry limit and increased (realistic) weight for everything. (Food sticks and straw, too, that in big quantities are not light)

I agree but I think your suggestion is so much specific.

If you think on improving a biome, you (and we) should think on improving all the biomes.

I don't have ideas, i like yours and i wait for others' ideas.

A few weeks ago I saw a Kitty's tweet that say that torches took 8 hours to implement in TFC2.  

8

3

Miner, building will be a lot more gratifyinfg and interesting, for me at least, if I can carry only one stone block at time, or 4 planks at time.

Now in minecraft you can build a small refuge in literally 1-2 minutes.

36................

Your brain is gonna rot.

pa k kiere saber eso jaja saludos

143

Zombies are too dumb to talk in a forum.

Where do you found them?

8 hours ago, ShinobiG said:

So a blacksmith with a low smithing skill will create a tool that starts at a lower durability? Or are you saying that a smith's skill just shouldn't figure into it? Both are interesting propositions.

Of course. The idea that metal from tools should be recoverable was the original point of my suggestion. After all, when a stick or rock breaks, it makes sense that it's no longer useful, but metal can always be melted down to make something new.

First of all, yes, we will be able to melt the item at any durability.

Better if I rewrite my idea in a new post. Maybe this afternoon.

20 hours ago, ShinobiG said:

Thanks for the input, your formula is very well thought through.

One question though, in TFC1, quality was measured numerically, and was higher the higher your smithing skill was. So, assuming that's still a thing, how do we translate that to percentage? And how does a smith's skill figure into it?

We don't need to convert it to a percentage.

If an item has 110 total durability, for example, when it has 990 durability it will be at 90% of the quality.

I forgot to say that "s" is the damage, too, and that when the item reaches 0 durability it breaks like in vanilla. But no-one will be still using the tool, as it will be very slow.

Mithril?

Nah

I prefer the second alternative, the item loses quality.

This suggrstion can seem not very important, but IMO this will change a lot the gameplay, so that you don't make a new axe because yours broke, but why you want to have a good tool.

I suggest that the losing of durability will make the tool mining slower, with de decrease of quadratic, with this equation:

s=100-(10-q/10)^2

Where s and q are the mining speed and the quality(% of the durability), both as a percentage.

Example:

100% quality, 100% speed

90% quality, 99% speed

80% quality, 96% speed

50% quality, 75% speed

25% quality,  43,75% speed

10% quality, 19% speed

1% quality, 1,99% speed