Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
Once you can unlock tier 1 armors, I recommend making yourself a set of Lumberjack (all 4 pieces). Since it's light armor it won't reduce your mobility at all, and unlike other sets it's full-set bonus (double wood harvest) doesn't increase with armor tier (so it's really handy immediately). It won't reduce incoming damage as much as Primitive armor, but double wood harvest in the early game is really nice. The bonuses granted by each tier 1 armor is generally really low (like 2% or maybe 10%), so you probably won't notice any of them except for that Lumberjack full bonus buff.
You can click on the books icon in the skill menu and then click on armor to find out how many more books you need to unlock the next level.
When you're crafting armour and looking at the list of armours in your crafting list, select one and in the top right change the tab from showing the ingredients list to showing the long description. The long description will mention what it does and what the full set will do (but no numbers, since those change a little with every tier of armour). Keep in mind that the numbers often double between tier 5 and tier 6 (so Farmer Armour at T5 gives 50% +1 crop while at T6 it gives 100% +1 crop, but I think Preacher gloves go from 50% to 60% (note these %'s just add to whatever bonus % you're doing, so Sneak damage might go from 200% to 260%)).
Other armours can be searched for in the character's crafting screen, but they won't appear on the armours tab. They will appear if you interact with a workbench, as that's where you need to craft them.
Every item has a hot tag associated with the in-game name. All armor items have a "armor" tag. Search "med" and all medical items with that tag will also show. Etc.
The use of English English rather than American English is irrelevant to my point.
Unless you're claiming that 7DTD will show all armours in the armours tab in the character's crafting menu if the game somehow knows that the player is using American English and won't do so if the game somehow knows that the player is using English English.
If that's what you're claiming, you're wrong.
If you read my post, you'll notice that I already said that they appear if you search in the character's crafting menu.
There are maybe a dozen different versions of English, depending on how you differentiate between them. Many more if you count dialects (there are dozens of those in English English alone, though there is an ongoing trend towards more homogeneity in dialects). Some dialects have limited mutual intelligibility with each other, especially when accents are added.
Then there are the grey areas where a dialect has diverged from the original far enough for some people to classify it as a new language. Scots is probably the best known example of that, at least in the UK. It started as a dialect of English spoken by some people in southern Scotland (i.e. near the border with England) and it's very clearly a derivative of English, but is it different enough to call it a different language? Who knows? How can such a thing be defined? Humans strongly tend to like to classify things neatly into separate categories (we're hardwired for patterns) but that's often not realistic.
Then there are English-based pidgins and creoles. Quite a few of those. Are they English? Sort of. And sort of not.
It's even messier if you look back in time. A modern English speaker could just about get by with English up until about 500 years ago. Mostly, apart from slang and not accounting for accents (they were different) and dialects (many). Further back than that, the guts of the language were different enough to make understanding at best very difficult. Generally, English is split into 3 different things over time. Different languages? Maybe. It depends how you define what a language is. Old, Middle and Modern. All current versions of English are modern. All the way back to Shakespeare's time is modern (as an aside, I think it's interesting to hear Shakespeare's work performed with period correct pronunciation and accents - it's quite different to contempory English performances even with the original text). Chaucer's work is an easily found example of middle English. Have fun reading that in the original. Beowulf is the best known example of late old English (the oldest extant copy was written ~1000 AD) and you won't be reading that in the original without a lot of study. Not even after the switch to a semi-Roman alphabet almost the same as the one we use today. Earlier old English was written in a runic script. Elder Futhark IIRC. Tolkien used it for one of the Elvish languages in his writing.
Old English was very different:
https://www.tha-engliscan-gesithas.org.uk/written-and-spoken-old-english/old-english-readings/beowulf/
That's written after the script change to the Roman one, the one we're familar with. Mostly, with some forms of the runes still in use. Which, as an aside, is why you sometimes see Y instead of Th in some old writing (or deliberately old-style writing). When the first typeset printing presses were invented, they didn't use the runes that were still in use in English at that time. So printers had to improvise. The letter Y was closest to the rune called "thorn", so they used that. But it was pronounced completely differently from 'Y', pronounced the same way we'd pronounce 'Th' today. But not in the pronoun Ye. That was a Y and pronounced as such. People had to judge which was a Y and which was a substitute for the thorn rune by context.
Talking of Tolkien, a linguist used a passage from Tolkien's work to make a superb video of the evolution of English. He shows (and speaks) the same passage from Tolkien in different versions of English from different periods of time, plus in some of the languages that influenced English over time. It's a wonderful video for anyone with any interest in the subject.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1oZf-OxxEY
I wandered off tangent a while there...most of the differences in spelling between English English and American English stem from an attempt to simplify spelling that was slightly successful in the USA only. I think Webster (the dictionary guy) was behind it, though I'm not at all sure about that. It's not necessarily wrong. English has some weird spelling and simplifying it to make it more internally consistent isn't a bad idea. But it's not necessarily right either. It's just different.
The irony with the word "defense" is that we also spell the word 'fence' (like you have in your yard). It's all kinds of messed up lol. The british and spanish left a profound trail after the revolutionary war and the war of 1812.
If you didn't mean it, why did you write about searching and spelling in response to something completely different I said? It's the only way your reply makes sense as a reply to what I wrote.
French too. The French involvement in the American war of independence is much overlooked, on both sides of the Atlantic.
It's kind of fitting. English has long been a sort of language soup, with ingredients from all over the place. The variations between the dialects are sort of like different garnishes on it.
"Cookies", for example. That's from Dutch. My guess is that Dutch bakers in New Amsterdam made good ones and English speakers in America used an Anglicised version of the Dutch word for them. They're "biscuits" here. Which means something quite different over there.
Some of the differences are just divergence over time. "taxi" (English) and "cab" (American), for example. They don't sound at all connected, but they are. Such vehicles were called "taxe cabriolet" in 19th century France. For some reason, the French name entered English and displaced the existing English names. It was then Anglicised and shortened to "taxicab". For some reason, that was further shorten to "taxi" in Britain and "cab" in the USA.