Visitor

I am also not fond of this idea. While I don't mind certain prerequisites enforcing logical design decisions (furnace having access to some sort of chimney/ventilation, charcoal pit needing the opposite) going too far with such would not only stem creativity but severely limit enjoyment as everyone would have to develop certain facilities up to some hard-coded spec.

Bother devs about late game content and/or restart the world. Or better yet, consider other activities - read a good book, play a different game, go for a walk, learn a skill, watch some decent movie or TV series, meet up with people. There's plenty to do.

I assume that if it's official word the suggestion is shot. But is it really like you/Kitty says? As mentioned above, it seems that many animals despite minor differences still serve the same function, especially since players don't find them in linear fashion (one can often find chickens before pheasants in regards to feather, deer being just there for food as whether it possess any more aesthetic value than, say, a pig is subjective etc).I really suspect that as new animals will be added, claim of their specialization will look more and more questionable. Guess time will tell. Personally, I'd claim that humble degree of variation and alternative offered to the player in his choices would improve gameplay, not just believability in this case, but since I am not the one working on this mod, this opinion may not be valued much.Well, whatever differences in opinions, thanks for sharing devteam decision on this all the same.

Then I must say you made me smile as apparently we did go the path of it mattering little given the whole suggestion (working on the assumption that there's no genetics) and following discussion. Oh well, as long as it stays the way it is I have no further problems with it, problem solved

There's a misunderstanding I believe. Both ideas you've shared in this thread, yes but genetics isn't the same as quality dependant on player actions. That's why I've said 'separate idea' as AllenWL in the last post was regarding the latter more than former thing I have issue with. And here's where we hit the conundrum I've already entioned, a few times in fact.If the genetics has to have noticeable, lasting effects to have a point, then just feeding animal and keeping it in good health shouldn't be easy deal nor one that make the problem go away permanently. At the same time, if it will be hard to take care of animal or, even worse, animal quality will be a matter of luck with no way of improving it in relation to other specimen, then it will be unfair if not also bothersome. If, however, you can easily make up for bad genetics and make animal all good, quality and healthy just with care then I don't see much point of adding genetics in the first place. True, but it seems questionable to me whether the's point in adding it in the first place if what balancing can achieve is making it only somewhat obnoxious and/or somewhat noticeable with dependance on luck. I am simply not convinced whether the bits I have problem with would really improve my gameplay rather than steer me away once implemented.

While I could contest the point about availability of bones (depending on world and player's luck, one can gather a plenty of them) it would improve gameplay rather than disturb it, even if only a bit (as I never found limestone or marble to be particularly rare). However. It may be me lacking some common knowledge or ability to seek it but I were not aware of burning bones at any time in the history in production of lime in quantities allowing widespread use - not debating the fact the lime was used, since a lone time, it's just it was lime acquired otherwise. I also couldn't find information about how much lime that can be used in regular industry can be extracted from a bone, if any. I'd like to request help with finding relevant info especially since I am concerned that it may very well be that you cannot extract enough lime even from a stack of bones to get anywhere, thus making this feature not very fitting.

I agree that the way current mechanics works is both testing suspension of disbelief and not overly realistic but in all honesty, I'd rather have it left as it is. It's the kind of simplification that makes the game actually more enjoyable. Suggested content, while it'd make the whole deal more realistic (that's where it's believability would stem from) would be also bothersome - just additional step requiring implementation of new crafting recipe and items, increasing length of time of producing otherwise common - at least post-prehistoric phase - material. I doubt I'd enjoy much such feature.

I actually never had overly much problems with baby zombies. The only thing that really bothered me is that they don't seem to drop much in terms of items or experience, especially in relation to how superior they are when compared with regular zombies. I play usually at hard or hardcore, rarely wear any decent armor and I also didn't find them as powerful, fast etc however as people claim them to be. Wither skeletons I consider to be far worse adversary. However, the not-burning-during-the-day bug should be fixed and it does seem a bit weird that such little things have no issues with utilizing regular equipment players may drop. Why I wouldn't want baby zombies to disappear completely, slight reduction in spawn rate, a restriction on using dropped items and activation of susceptibility to the sunlight would be good, if it would be possible without any major issues.

And in times when you'll find an animal you were seeking, I wouldn't want players to experience additional kick to the head in form of 'the cow you finally found is scrawny, evolutionary retarded in comparison with it's peers specimen, enjoy'! Exactly, and this I regarded: either the feature will depend greatly on one's luck and have quite noticeable impact, which I don't think is fair, especially on top of random factors we already have (though those factors are more balanced) or like you've said, primary way of making animal have some worth is through taking care of it and feeding it, making the whole genetics system a gimmick to be quickly ignored which would require work for something that wouldn't really enrich the game after first few minutes and often be ignored altogether.You regard the point of having animal value depend on raising here, a different idea which I don't have as much issue with, though I have to stress how important it is to make it balanced enough to be a feature not a dull chore making game repetitive.

I actually wouldn't mind milk coming from more than just cows. While I understand Kitty's argument, it not only rubs my suspension of disbelief the wrong way (no believability, oh noes!), it also seems - yes, I'll risk saying so - quite flimsy given that in her examples several animal mobs serve the same function or their 'purposes' easily overlap (providing food in case of most animalsand a sole function in case of deer as well as what is decorative and what's not is really subjective, feathers in case of both chickens and pheasants in equal measure as in the wild player can easily find both). And there are plans to add even more animals anyway, so sooner or later the whole idea of specialization will be either making less sense or won't work even more. Details of differences between those animals taken into account (as differences are mostly in details), I wouldn't mind it if goat would be giving milk less often and it wouldn't lead to exactly the same results as cow milk when processed - then the difference would be as big as they tend to be now (and here, values can be easily adjusted). Really, in some biomes and parts of the world, raising sheep or goats instead of cows is both more logical and immersive, min-maxing profits from game mechanics nonwithstanding.

It seems more like this is suggestion of merging two mods (especially given you yourself called it 'crossover mod') rather than make them compatible as shown by suggestions to actually add elements from both mods instead of making developers adjust the code behind them. I believe that's how it should be done and how it is in most cases - standarized values and code so elements of different mods can work with each other or, if necessary overwrite in a way that makes the mods work well with each other. Actually changing the features of the mods to depend on each other - porting recipes from one mod to the other, changing them so they need something from Thaumcraft and TFC, adding cross-mod dependancies on textures and so on, and so on - would make both mods either needlessly convoluted or problematic if someone would want to play just TFC or Thaumcraft. Unless you mean it like some sort of bridge between them, installed separately. I am not sure if making third mod is the right way to go in such case, but someone more well-versed in Minecraft modding than I am should answer that. I wouldn't mind some adjustments to be made but frankly, I believe there are things in TFC itself that would use devteam time and effort.

I actually don't mind it at all and probably wouldn't complain too much if it would be made even more rare. Aside from the factor of luck in acquiring the ore, it's not really that important (unless you really need a special bucket, but you don't need to much to make one) as usually by the time you acquire it, you really don't really have much of a reason to make red/blue steel equipment. There's also that multiplayer aspect mentioned, where few folks can gather plenty of blue/red steel in relatively short time. Other than that, I'd simply like for non-necessary, rare, good stuff to remain rare which brings me back to my earlier statement - I wouldn't want red/blue steel to be more common. Graphite, however, I saw quite a few people complaining about and I'd like to see either more of that resource around typical TFC world or have a decent substitute for it.

I am quite sure he refers to explosive properties of certain metals during the game as suggested in this thread, which would allow their use as TNT even when one wants little to do with the dimension itself.Other than that I like the ideas of big, big creatures traversing the world - though not necessarily hostile - and of hiding spider, though I get an impression of the whole idea turned from alien, sinister dimension into one about the world trying to be as scary and dangerous as possible.As I argued in the past, I wouldn't mind more alien/pocket dimensions but I'd rather keep them from adhering just to single theme (more 'alien' than 'a trip to a themepark - choose whether you want something scary, cute or heroic fantasy'). Here, it seems it'd be mostly about avoiding or fighting all kinds of random things wanting to hurt the character and I think it could do better than this.

Very nice of you, but I'd like to see it with real, optimized, well-working code. I didn't mean any part specifically, though, but the whole feature which would actually consist of set of several lesser features making it up. That's the point. If you'll overdo it, there won't be any attachment. Just aggravation of 'I have enough of this crap'. The deal of TFC is more of progressing despite obstacles to carve one's secure place in the world. While little upkeep chores are part of it, extending the gameplay and making it more complex, having to run around changing floor blocks once upon several days on top of one has to do normally won't just add to immersion or progression - for many players it will become another point on the dull checklist of things to do for the day.If I understand correctly, it's partially one of the reasons why we don't have regular watering, insect-spraying and fertilizing crops as the vital necessity of farming. There's developing certain features and there's making them a real chore for the player, who stops having fun and has to invest himself in the game the same way they would have to do with unpleasant job.I won't say that the idea is completely horrible but whoever would be adding it, if at all (as I am still uncertain whether it'd add enough gameplay to justify the work), would have to be very careful about it. Adding one bale of straw per a few days during winter, when I cannot let my stock feed itself outside is fine. Having to interrupt exploration or mining activities, because game demands for me to add some more food or clean up the barn would be just adding work for developers only so average player/server owner will also do some work to add a mod reverting the feature. First point is quite convincing and I do believe that while it'd make the game considerably harder and unforgiving for some (even if unjustly at times), it'd be an interesting addition. However, in case of no 2, again, I'd remind of importance of moderation in developing certain aspects of gameplay.While the game is meant to be immersive and semi-realistic (do we hear the cries of 'believable!' yet?) , it's not life. Part of the inherent appeal of games is the fact that most of one's success depends on work and skill, not luck of the draw. The game is ultimately to bring satisfaction, not punish players for no shortcomings of their own. Even in a genre more vested in random factor and luck, roguelikes, there's certain importance put in the principle of action and it's results. You cannot be sure what will be the result exactly and there are certain risks involved, but rarely even rather unlucky gaming sessions result in the game giving you the finger if you play well - at least not in games enjoying certain degree of success.Adding to disparsity between 'quality' of animals based purely on luck in TFC would be like making the game randomly change stats of animals or giving them a chance of losing health whenever interacted with, for 'shit and giggles'. No matter your work, no matter the effort, you ultimately are a pawn of RNG, then. I sincerely doubt many players would enjoy that if effects of said stats would be really important.Generally, livestock handling could use some polishing and ideas in this thread are worth consideration, but I wouldn't want the game to go so far in the direction of farmhand simulator that all the other aspects of gameplay would be obstructed by it.

I'd also prefer some ability to change final look of the armor - but only to a certain degree - change of tint of armor's default color, slight change in model or texture (so, say, every armor from iron up will have an option of sporting enclosed helmet). I do not like OP idea of adding new high tier metals just for variety in armors. Arguably, buckets aside, the whole tier is decorational at this point as usually by the time one has enough materials to make full suit of red/blue steel armor, there's no need for one.

Eh, Xervir Xervir, you do realize that the thread is from last year, plenty of the suggestions from it we have in one form or the other already, others were already discussed - also elsewhere - and deemed, at the very least, not sufficiently useful for implementation and there really wasn't much of a point of reviving the whole thing without making oneself look silly, I hope? Well, at least you do know now. I mean, I value your attempt at having a go at discussion, but it's not really the place for it. I'd even suggest closing this thread as there's no need for bump and if someone believes that the same issue is present now, we should get a new, up-to-date with mechanics thread for it.

I agree with the sentiment, but in all honesty, I think that roofed 'lawn' should be a viable option. It could be easily balanced by the fact of how much grass regular cow/sheep has to eat (requiring some straw anyway or a really big roofed pasture which in turn could cut down light making it harder for grass to regrow). I am not overly fond of this part. That's really, really quite some development work. I guess I'd rather settle for simply dropping a block of straw and making animals eat from it (making said block last a few 'feedings') if there's no grass available. Should be far easier to add and - at least for players like me - strike a decent balance between actually having to take care of animals instead of cooping 20 cows in 4x4 area and the feature not being additional chore that required aforementioned work to be put in in the first place. Because, I am willing to bet, for some people that wouldn't be fun, it would be just an additional chore, especially after they'd have to change the straw on the floor for xxxth time. I am ambivalent somewhat toward this. On one hand, yes, differentiation of specimen and gain proportional to the quality of player's work are quite decent ideas, on the other I can see all those dying animals in the wild (because of no roof and sometimes being spawn where there's not much grass) as well as I am not fond of the fact that a lot of the feature would depend on the luck of player finding animal with good genes which could be simply unfair if two players would work as hard to find a cow and one would get great animal, while the other - underperforming one. Sure, the difference could be miniscule but then, what's the point of spending time and working hard on implementation if the difference won't matter? While I am also not a great fan of PETA, it would do them justice if everyone would read the article before commiting oversimplification or false accusations. The article regards morally questionable methods of euthanasia and while they argue that euthanasia itself may be sometimes the lesser evil (in case of rampant overpopulation and animals dying slowly in poor conditions with no one willing to take care of them), they encourage people to not reach for such drastic methods and underline importance of alternatives in keeping populations in check such as animal birth control. In all honesty, that seems like a decent idea, though I'd rather concentrate on 'damp' part as at this point of the game it's hard to really counter the 'cold' one on a bigger scale. Not to mention the fact that in dry, enclosed quarters, like barn, where there's not much wind cows can fare better than humans as they generate far more heat - in fact, I recall reading about how in some ancient times certain cultures kept their livestock at homes as bio-radiators.We could combine it with AllenWL's idea, as well. ...which seems a decent one. Though I possibly would rather avoid implementing sheep laying eggs (just amusing derp moment, I assume). That's a considerably interesting feature. However, I wouldn't want to make it totally random as sometimes it would just inconvenience the player. Maybe semi-random, with feeding the animals encouraging them into starting 'reproductive cycle' and making them more fertile (while making chance of such happening rather low otherwise). Got my wholehearted agreement here. That'd just bring problems.

I believe the whole point was to create goals for the player to choose, when - especially mid to late-game, where survival is not an issue and player has access to basic iron equipment - there's nothing beside grinding left to do. While we agreed that some random events may be enriching the game as well, forcing major calamities that can result in destruction of player's work is quite a different thing.I'd rather have random things happening in the world that player can, rather than has to participate in which bear their own rewards and risks, with global events more of a passing challenge encouraging certain decisions and change of player's behavior rather than enforcing certain actions at the penalty of death or worse. After all, there are all kinds of players and some will want to and be perfectly happy with building some small homestead, not needing nor appreciating great random disasters they didn't sign up for.

Yup, something like that would need a different mode or even better - be simply toggleable event rather than one which has a chance of happening automatically. While things like extended period of darkness, drastic weather or temporary change of progress of different features ("'Tis a sickly green sun! Ye food be spoilin' but also growin' swiftly!" kind of thing) may be challenges and affect gameplay for some time, they still allow all kinds of player endeavors.In comparison with that, forcing characters to abandon their nice little huts because they have now to make underground bunkers would be quite a bad thing.We start to move away quite far from 'end-game goals' and toward 'random disasters', I notice.

Then this suggestion shouldn't be a problem - it's a thing easy to add, making gameplay more attractive to some and it is both realistic and believable. In fact, it's what we already had and which was only changed to accomodate aspect of mining and cave-ins. Adding dry stone maintains that effect while providing access to what we had.

I'd rather keep it going, until it will die of natural death as people may easily run out of ideas. Right now folks discuss a problem that devteam may be aware of but consider alternatives to making the system work said devteam. The discussion so far seemed polite, with exception of your behavior which, while normally alright, right now is way below what a respectable forum member should aspire to, to not call it something disrespectful. Calm down and let people talk.Potatoes could use some changes, agreed. Uniformal crops behavior is one thing, but different produce actually should be, well, varied. Otherwise we'd just get single fruit/vegetable with different sprite. I understand that current system, while not taken too well by quite a few members of the community, attains the goal of limiting the number of seeds. However, I don't see a problem for some of the crops to, for example, use the old, modified system of getting those - involving cutting up fruit/vegetable/whatever with a chance of getting 0 - 2 seeds. While crafting results are usually static, I am nearly sure there was some mod that somehow circumvented that. Not to mention the fact that it would be possible to add a method not using crafting grid.I would like to see this change incorporated (as well as generally see a bit more of development in farming) but I don't think it should be a priority, however.

I am not worried about 'fourth wall' - while players can identify themselves with the characters and no matter whether it's good or bad (sometimes even, it depends on the game), I am yet to find situation where it'd be lack of methods of overpowering characters that'd cause breaking such. In the case of what I believe in it's not a matter of identifying oneself with the character for better or worse, but the simple fact that no matter the progression, characters being better should stem naturally from the players and their experience.Like in the example I've mentioned - I don't mind idea of skill in general, but I strongly believe that making them simply 'get more, stronger and better' is simply unambitious, dull and simply - a waste of the idea. Now, if there would be certain benefits that don't directly translate to power, but additional options for the players or better 'secondary' abilities, that's worth consideration. Increased chance or effect of more complex actions that aren't primarily used to show certain superirioty in player-to-player interactions. Like easier time figuring proper sequence of actions when smithing something for maximum results or more accurate prospecting results. That I can get behind.Other than that, I think we let this discussion spill a bit to a different thread, didn't we.

In all honesty, I.. actually don't see much of a problem. Though I don't think that's true - because there's much beside character skills. Veteran player will be well-equipped and with tiny bit of edge that comes from familiarity with the game. To be frank, I don't think he should have overly much additional power beside that.Aside from this, the idea is for skills to have distinction, but to not be a brainless 'let's slap a bonus on whatever you can already do so you'll do it stronger' but provide an edge to those who can use it well, while still leaving most space for player's ingenuity. Good player then will have more tools to employ but if they cannot appreciate them, their opponents should have better chances. In addition to that we already have a well working mechanics separating veterans from new players in the form of levels - more HP and ability to withstand longer with no food or water coupled with better equipment and familiarity with area and/or use of in-game weapons is enough in my opinion. Either I am missing connection between first and the second sentence or you forgot/don't know what mechanics we discuss. In the game, the characters who do not use certain skills experience their decay (by which we mean they lose them but get a huge bonus when taking them up again, so they can more easily regain what they've lost). In no way we talk about players - as in 'players sitting in front of computers' - being the same, no matter if they are or not.Doesn't mean I'd like aforementioned decay here in TFC, but I thought I'd clarify what it is discussed. They do, half of the gameplay revolves around it in the form of crafting better equipment and acquiring experience levels. I simply don't think we should go beyond that and additional options, not-directly-affecting-power options some skills could provide. Otherwise we'll got unfair opposite - people who get bonuses and powers only because they were grinding brainlessly outperforming their opponents.Should the idea of almanac go through, I don't see a problem with being able to note disasters down, though I am not sure whether we really need for it to be done automatically. Simply being able to write stuff in in-game notepad with some date would work fine for me. As for cycles on servers, not sure about the time range 45 - 60 but I sincerely believe that either way, it should be something servers themselves should adjust as some people may want peaceful, stable worlds and some would probably try to create community and survive in a world of turmoil and uncertain tomorrow.

Provided sufficiently fitting circumstances, I can consider dispensing modest quantity of hugs. However, on the forums, where people should debate/discuss things.. blah.

Newest Edit: This turned into some essay, so to those who'd rather not bite too hard into it, tl;dr version - I doubt that proposed change would benefit the game, for several reasons. Longer version: The titles for skills are in and that idea I like them - so I am glad that's in the works. However I am not fond of any player ones. I may be, say, a blacksmith because that's my main occupation I devote myself to. I may also be good at making really nice dishes, but I am still blacksmith by trade, not a cook - and if I am blacksmith I want it to be recognised the way it'd happen IRL - because those who know me are aware of my trade. Floating titles, some special info about the player and other such things I dislike quite much. It may have been good in many MMORPGs when people sought crafters to make them some decent stuff (although even in UO, on modified, more survivalistic and realism-oriented shards [servers] stuff like visible names you didn't assign to folks yourself were taken out) or needed to assemble a team of characters with diverse skills but TFC isn't really a place for the same, in my opinion. I am a DF player but I wouldn't want it's type of system here as well, mainly that 'getting rusty' thing. I understand it's to mitigate making it too easy for jacks-of-all-trades who should earn their broad range of proficiencies, a sentiment I may agree with but I also think that losing what you've earned with your hard work just because you take a break and devote to something else is unpleasant, if not unfair. TFC is of different pacing, about people carving their place in the world. I'd rather have skills have very small impact on effects - even in case of rather high values of them - and to be raised with lot of work, so skills will be just additional bonus stemming from what person does, not a goal of grinding. Then, also forgetting the skill won't be necessary. Regarding gains from skill. Let me stress it, though it's not the first time I've shared this sentiment. It will also be somewhat longer thing, even a bit of a social commentary. I apologize to those whose time I'll take and who will find it wasted. Dumbing down skills to make them simply provide more, faster and easily is bad design decision not beffiting really ambitious projects which claim to value survival abilities and believability, if not realism. It can be balanced somewhat (vide acquisition of seeds at the time of harvesting plant rather than processing it - a step back from what we had in my opinion, but at least not a complete disaster) but it still makes the whole feature a simple grind. I want skill to depend in big part on actual proficiencies and wits of the player. For example, a different suggestion involving mining skill that advocates said skill increasing how reliable prospecting is (prospecting is kind of different field than mining, I am aware, still, the idea's good) - where said prospecting still requires some thinking rather than just running around and tapping rocks. I don't think every occupation needs a skill actually. Nor I don't think every aspect of those who may benefit from one has to be affected by a skill. I don't want someone to get double of worth of wood simply because he cut lot of it in the past. I don't want veins to suddenly get more rich because the one mining them mined through many before. Sword swings of experiences warrior can be more finesse, accurate and harder to parry but they don't get extra strength, the sword isn't getting magically sharp, more durable or lighter only because experienced warrior is using it. Regular, strong peasant lacks technique, doesn't recognize certain movements and doesn't know how to respond to certain actions and that's why he will most likely lose. But he still may be stronger and his woodsman axe guided by his strong arm may brutally outpower rapier of a fencer. Addition of skills opened quite a few possibilities but I am starting to worry people got overhyped and now go a bit too far. 'Every action now has to have a skill and increase boons with time' - an implied reasoning which I cannot agree with. Yes, such thing provides satisfaction and measurable effects of progression but also leads to typical MMO overabundance of certain resources or heroic fantasy super masters of all kinds of random crap who in reality, sitting in front of the computers, devoted little of any thought to their trade, just mindlessly grinded stats. Yes, I am aware that that often what games are - a fun thing available for all kinds of people, allowing also those with certain.. deficiencies to also feel accomplished and enjoy themselves. That is a good thing. But if we go too far in our attempts at making them have exactly the same go at everything as anyone, we lower the bar and make those with talents and abilities simply unable to use them. I suspect that's one of the reasons for raise and popularity of games like Dark Souls, modern first person-perspective shooters including brutal, open-world ones like DayZ or indie games like Dwarf Fortress - challenging gameplay where people use and hone their skills, not just skills of their characters. But I digress. We don't talk about games in general but TFC, aren't we. I'd like to remind both posters and the devteam of importance of certain detachment and careful consideration, here. Yes, there is potential in skills but there's also risk that by trying to fulfill this potential too eagerly without proper deliberation will ruin big part of the game. Let the TFC be about survival, rewarding proper use of resources and the ability to acquire them - rewarding ingenuity and work of a player. Not a game of random folks grinding themselves to prosperity, surely and easily - as it's just a matter of time. To digress for the last time, though it's in connection to where OP comes from. Ultima Online - or at least some of the shards of it I played - was (and still is, even if not officially supported anymore) a good game. Lots of mechanics included in it - diverse, balanced wearables, skills and stats development stemming naturally from what player does, serving enriching the experience rather than just empowering the character or items of realistic limitations and use rather than 'you are level 5 warrior, so here's the armor for you, with differently skinned/enchanted version of it available through crafting or loot - no alternatives to what you'll wear beside our vanity armor reskins' went way ahead of games of it's time and is still better than many current, horribly simplified and plain stupid MMOs (really, that armor and class example just now, that's a standard mechanics not only in heroic fantasy, adventure games - where such simplification can be understandable, even good - but also in those which supposedly aspire to create immersive, living virtual worlds - and with such mechanics fail). However (pardon the rant), it's not an ultimate solution. I don't think that the same mechanics will work in just any all kinds of games. TFC included.