jacob4408

I have googled many things since I started playing TFC and reading these forums but orange cave crocs has to be the oddest...so far.

http://www.abanda-expedition.org/orange-cave-dwelling-crocodile-012.html

I like the greenhouses as long as they are balanced.  No way should a player have 15 acre greenhouses.  They should be expensive/difficult to build in order to keep them small.  Also, they should require a mechanism like fertilizer to restore the nutrients in the soil since they are not exposed to the normal sun, rains, etc.

In cold climates they would be worth the effort but in warmer climates they would yield too little benefit for too great a cost.

Sorry, but I disagree - making an already tedious process more tedious does not make the game more difficult, it just makes it more tedious. There is zero difficulty involved in woodchopping. None. Nada.

 

Game systems in TFC that add difficulty are, for example, smithing and prospecting. Those require player skill, in that you need to react to the feedback the game gives you and make choices on how to proceed. Felling a tree, however, has no player skill component. In fact, if it wasn't for the terrain, you could place something heavy on the W key and the right left mouse button, go AFK, and come back to a full inventory of wood (provided the axe didn't break yet).

 

Making the game force you to spend twice as long to remove a tree completely doesn't change that fact. It just makes players more likely to desire a bogus way for AFK farming like that because doing it actively becomes a disgusting chore. Especially since even now, farming wood and sticks is quite possibly already the thing that takes up the largest percentage of a typical player's ingame activity.

Harvesting crops doesn't take skill, planting seeds doesn't take skill, animal husbandry doesn't take skill, digging a charcoal pit doesn't take skill, a pit kiln doesn't take skill....the list of necessary activities in TFC that require no player skill is quite a long one so I don't know that is a valid argument against

And if a players wants a simple AFK way to farm resources then TFC probably isn't for them. Nothing would force you to remove stumps if you didn't want to.  You could follow the historical models of leaving them there or waiting until you had TNT and blast the stumps.

Absolutely, if the deeper nutritional system was a something like forging that a player could opt out of and still play the game that would be optimal.  I just don't want to be required to spend anymore time on nutrition than I have to. 

My strong feelings may come from the fact that I'm in the middle of weight cut to make a lower weight class before my BJJ tournament. Losing 4-5 lbs a week right now. I obsess over nutritional balance all day in RL.  Don't want to do it in the game as well.

I personally don't see the difference between search around for various ores, then mixing them at the right percentages to create alloys, then paying close attention while you heat them and work them, again having to find the right combinations to do so without wasting too much fuel...and searching around for various foods, and trying to mix them in different quantities to obtain different degrees of nutrition.  The essential activity of search, acquire, experiment and succeed is there.

That is a perfectly accurate assessment of the procedure leading up to the goal.  The difference (to me at least) is the result of all this activity. With smithing the result is a tangible something I can see, use, display, wield for a long time as the payoff for all my time and effort.  With nutrition, the payoff is...I get hungry again in a few hours and have to do it all over again.

I'm not militantly opposed to a deeper nutrition system, I just question whether most players would see it as an improvement or a detriment.

@dutchraptor - I don't think anyone is simply dismissing this as "too complex" but rather doubting whether it make the game more enjoyable or whether the result is worth the coding investment.

There are several different ways this could be implemented but I suppose it would all hinge on which is the easiest to code...

• when a sapling grows, have the first log above ground be a new block more resistant to chopping.
• on sapling growth create first log block underground and any log surrounded by dirt is more resistant to chopping (dig it out first or chop away)
• when a tree is chopped down, first log above ground isn't affected until all those above it are gone (would require 2 choppings instead of 1 and 2nd would only get you 1 log)

I'm sure there are other ways but this is what I came up with off the top of my head.

@Kittychanley - can you move this to the Suggestion forum or do I need to manually create another post there?

A common feature of many period woodcuts/drawings/paintings of new settlements are structures surrounded by acres of tree stumps. Settlers needed the nearby wood to build but left the time consuming and labor intensive stump removal until much later when survival was easier.

In my game, I emulate this by leaving the bottom blocks of trees when I chop them and either not replanting or replanting farther from home.  Would anyone else have interest in a difficult to chop/dig stump being left behind anytime you chop down a tree?

 

 

As for whether you'd like the system I proposed, or find it needlessly frustrating...well, that's how some people feel about using an anvil.  The point is that nutrition, like metallurgy, requires awareness, experimentation and a willingness to learn. .

I realize that different people enjoy different things but it seems that the majority of people attracted to Minecraft find the crafting portion to be very enjoyable.  As for me, the anvil and the complicated crafting is fun while micromanaging my diet....very not fun.  If I forge an RedSteel breastplate  I know my skills have progressed, I can see the different anvils and tools around my shop, I remember the time investment and I have a great sense of accomplishment because of the lasting result that I have achieved and can show off to my friends.

If I spends hours to perfectly balance my diet, I know I'll just be hungry again tomorrow.

@jacob4408

Thanks für the scolding, but why did you not quote the 5th line where I already appologize for my mistake?

Didn't mean it as a scolding. That's why I had the in there. You asked for correction if you were wrong so I was simply trying to provide that feedback. Sorry if it came across differently than I intended it.

Naughty Stuff:

But since it is writen that e.g. NPCs are not implementet as long as there is no good reason, I understand that as an encouragement to discuss Ideas amongs the commons and once a good reason emeges from these discussions it can be reported to the authoreties for further evaluations.

Please correct me if I am wrong!

Actually, it was stated by the Devs that no reason ever could ever possibly ever be worthy of ever implementing NPCs....ever.

Quote from Bioxx in the thread at the top of the Suggestions forum entitled Do No Post the Following Suggestions:

NPCs

There are plenty of things that NPCs could be used for in TFC but none of your reasons are good enough for me to want to have to add NPCs to the equation on top of everything else. Whats that? Your idea IS good enough? No its not.

http://terrafirmacraft.com/f/topic/16-do-not-post-the-following-suggestions/

I wasn't aware of the MAtmos mod.  I'm somewhat new to using mods and have been leery of conflicts so I only run TFC.  I will give MAtmos a try.  Thanks.

Etho is how I discovered TFC.  As many followers as he has, TFC should get a big boost.

One thing I've noticed is that the world seems very...sterile because there are no ambient sounds. Unless you are near animals or flowing water or in a thunderstorm there is only silence.  Adding just a few noises that occasionally played would really bring the world to life.  Some simple examples: wind, creaking limbs, birds, crickets, rustling grass, water splash (as if a fish or frog had jumped), squirrel bark (but only the non tomato thieving kind of course ), seagull and/or waves near ocean.

Ambient sound is commonly overlooked but it can add incredible depth and life to a game for a relatively small coding investment.  If you've ever played Skyrim with the ambient sound mods then you know just how much difference a few sounds can make.

Started in a northern region and this design fit in nicely with the viking theme that developed in our game.  It's nice to head into the long house on a snowy day and toss some wood in the fire pit to warm up.

+1 Kittychanley praise.  Follow her on Twitter as well because she tweets about wiki updates.  All in all, great bunch of developer's and great community.

If I recall correctly, the ones in armor don't burn in sunlight so they could all spawn with armor.

In a thread in the Discussion forum I made the following observation: 

 

When I encounter armored skeletons with weapons, my imagination immediately transforms them into hostile warriors from other tribes.  Gives me that feeling that I'm a hunter/gatherer competing with other clans/tribes for the resources. I find this far more believable than my friends and I are the only people in this entire world.

So here's the official suggestion: when "magical" mobs are moved underground can we get primitive human mobs above ground? These would act the same as skeletons but in appearance would represent other hunter/gatherers like the ourselves who we are competing against for survival resources.  Basically, it would just be a reskin of skeletons.

Just to clarify, I'm NOT talking about NPCs.  This would be nothing more than a reskin of skeletons to look like hostile tribesmen.  Maybe some different skins depending on biome to give the feel of different tribes being in different regions.

I understand the direction the devs want to go in and I'm not complaining.  But it wouldn't hurt my feeling if there was an add-on that reverted this change.

When I encounter armored skeletons with weapons, my imagination immediately transforms them into hostile warriors from other tribes.  Gives me that feeling that I'm a hunter/gatherer competing with other clans/tribes for the resources. I find this far more believable than my friends and I are the only people in this entire world. Hmm, maybe I should make this an official suggestion.

Personally, I would rather fight with armor-wearing javelin-flinging skeletons and the creepy moaning undead instead of a mundane albeit ferocious animal above ground at night.  I find that more frightening and exciting.  Plus, it would be hard to get decent variety for all the different biomes.  I wouldn't expect to see crocs in the north or large bears in the south.  Not sure about the habitat range of lions and tigers.

I read in a post that the devs plan to move hostile vanilla mobs (zombies, spiders, skeletons) under ground in a future release.  Is that official?  If so, will that mean that we no longer need to fear the night. 

For one, I am very happy with how things are now: at night near your home just enough hostile mobs to keep you on your toes; at night traveling you better find/build a shelter.

+1 snow accumulation. Make it scary to be far north in the winter.

Metal door would be perfectly acceptable. However, since I'm a glutton for punishment and quickly lose interest in game if it's not challenging, I still do it the traditional way. Dig a pit, fill it up, cover with dirt.  More labor/time intensive but why do things the easy way when a hard way is available.

To all of you saying moving water before the endgame tech is a bad thing - I strongly disagree - ancient egyptians irrigated their fields using much simpler technology. In fact, moving water should not require that much technology to begin with.

Valid point. I would support earlier game water movement if it is truly moving water from one place to another and not creating some sort of infinite water machine where I can use a 2x2 pond to irrigate 400 hectares of crop land. Then you would also need mechanisms (rain? metablocks?) to refill naturally occurring water sources like ponds and rivers if they had been drained.

I'm not sure how feasible all of that is to code.

I like this idea. I don't think knowing temp is breaking immersion. We need numbers because we are not there to feel temperature. I would be happy with qualifiers like Hot Warm Chilly etc. that represent ranges of degrees. I might even like that better than numbers. That should be divorced from an almanac and be displayed at all times, since it is a basic sensation.

+1

Instead of hitting F3, I would MUCH rather have a general temperature indicator such as Sweltering,Hot, Warm, Chilly, Cold, Freezing, Are-You-Stupid-Coming-Out-In-This-Weather.

F3 is immersion breaking for me but I have to use it sometimes like spring planting. Just because there is no ice on the pond, I still need to know whether it is 0.5 degrees (not safe to plant) or 8.5 degrees (probably safe to plant.)

I was afraid of that.  Thanks for the reply though!