Buff stone

[TVMAN]

The durability for stakewalls is 1000, meanwhile the durability for stone walls is 1500. a stakewall section costs 4 wood, while the 4x2 stone wall section costs 6 stone. Wood is plentiful and easy to acquire in massive quantities, meanwhile stone requires a separate crafting bench to build with and you'll be mining pillars in the Plains in order to quickly acquire the quantities you need to build fortifications.

Before you can even build with stone, you'll need iron from the swamp, which in turn requires cores from black forest crypts or surtlings for the smelter and the kiln. Stakewalls are available almost immediately. Effectively, this means that stone structures should be two tiers above stakewalls, since you need to explore two separate biomes beyond the meadows in order to unlock them. The durability difference between stakewalls and stone don't really reflect that requirement jump.

In practice, this means that a 2-3 section thick stakewall fort is stronger and more economical in both materials and time to build than a stone fortification. 2000-3000 durability vs. 1500 durability. Due to this, I think stone could use a massive buff considering the cost and effort involved.

To begin with, stone should be resistant to pierce, chop, and slash damage. That seems like a no-brainer. Keeping their neutrality to blunt damage makes sense, since historically battering down stone walls is how you dealt with them. I'd also suggest changing it so you only need the crafting bench in order to repair existing stone structures. The stonecutters bench should obviously still be required to actually place stone pieces, but the intent here is to make it easier for players to repair stone structures during a raid.

I'd also suggesting increasing the durability for stone walls, but the actual increase should depend on how durable black marble is ofc. Unfortunately I couldn't find the durability stats for the new black marble pieces like the blocks, so I can't give a specific number here yet.

All of this said, the devs should consider that the game mechanics as-is are encouraging players to build fortifications out of indestructible terrain and to deal with raids by kiting them around their bases until the raids despawn. Considering that both of these methods seem contrary to the intent of the game, which is for players to build defenses out of materials and defend them, it seems like the current defensive structures we have could use a balance pass.

[warrenchmobile]

You present a well-reasoned argument. However, I see three reasons why it may not be accepted by Iron Gate Studio (IGS).

First, buffing the strength of stone would not only make it more difficult for enemies to stone structures, it would also logically make it more difficult for vikings to destroy boulders in order to gather stone. I can easily see IGS dividing stone into basic types as it did with wood and ores. Just like wood is divided into wood, core wood, fine wood, and ancient bark requiring advanced tools made of advanced materials to obtain, IGS might logically divide stone into harder types requiring advanced tools made of advanced materials.

Second, although earthen walls are currently indestructible by enemies from the Meadows, Black Forest, Swamp, Mountain, and Plains, some enemies from those biomes can jump or fly over them. Earthen walls do require an active defense. I have not yet encountered Mistlands enemies. As far as I know, some of those enemies may be able to defeat earthen walls. Who knows what enemies from undeveloped biomes may be capable of.

Third, vikings did not historically construct fortifications of stone. They used wooden palisades and earthen walls. They did use the stone fortifications constructed by other people, as a player can currently do in Valheim but they did not build new ones.

If IGS follows your suggestion, I believe it will only do so as part of a major overhaul of the game. I personally would have no problem with that but I envision a lot of gnashing of teeth and rending of garments on the part of those who feel the game is currently "too grindy."

[TVMAN]

Thank you for your response! I'll address your post point by point.

Originally posted by warrenchmobile:

First, buffing the strength of stone would not only make it more difficult for enemies to stone structures, it would also logically make it more difficult for vikings to destroy boulders in order to gather stone.

I don't see how increasing the durability stat for stone objects would necessarily mean stone would be harder to harvest. My argument is that a 1500 durability wall isn't really worth the effort compared to how easy and affordable it is to build fortifications with stakewalls. That's only a 500 durability difference for far more work.

As a starter, they could up the durability for stone pieces to 2000 and add the resistances I mentioned before, then see how the game balance shakes out in practice as players adjust to the new stats. Playtesting like this is one of the advantages of early access, after all.

I can easily see IGS dividing stone into basic types as it did with wood and ores.

That's what they're doing with Black Marble, the new stone type introduced in the Mistlands. I really wish I could find the durability stats of black marble pieces so I could use that as a proper point of comparison for where stone should be. In my limited experience, Black Marble feels incredibly durable and it appears to be capable of withstanding even Mistlands creatures.

Based on my experience, I feel like the durability score for BM is much higher than Stone, when really Stone should be somewhere in between Black Marble blocks and wooden Stakewalls. Since Stone defenses currently fall in between stakewalls and black marble as far as game progression goes, stone should be capable of holding up going into the Plains imo. Currently, stone buildings can't withstand fulings or loxes in any useful capacity. Players frequently complain that stone feels like it's made of paper, considering the ease Plains critters and above can rip through it.

Second, although earthen walls are currently indestructible by enemies from the Meadows, Black Forest, Swamp, Mountain, and Plains, some enemies from those biomes can jump or fly over them. Earthen walls do require an active defense.

The point is that earthen walls are indestructible. All player constructed outer defenses are vulnerable to enemies that can jump or fly over them, so if anything earthen walls are vastly superior to wood, stone, and even black marble simply by virtue of being indestructible. It has all of the benefits with none of the drawbacks of player-constructed items. As far as the stone cost goes, raising earthen walls can be far cheaper than building a wall the same size out of stone. So, it's really no wonder why players routinely defend their bases with edited terrain.

Third, vikings did not historically construct fortifications of stone. They used wooden palisades and earthen walls. They did use the stone fortifications constructed by other people, as a player can currently do in Valheim but they did not build new ones.

I mean, vikings did not historically use magic as added in the mistlands either, so I think historical accuracy is a second priority to gameplay as far as the vision the devs have for the game goes. I don't think it historical accuracy is worth factoring in when it comes to gameplay balance changes.

Even though vikings did not usually construct stone fortifications, we can and often do. The Artwork and Screenshots sections of the community hub showcase a large number of amazing stone castles built by the playerbase. If the devs didn't want us to build castles like that, they wouldn't have added those objects into the game.

If IGS follows your suggestion, I believe it will only do so as part of a major overhaul of the game. I personally would have no problem with that but I envision a lot of gnashing of teeth and rending of garments on the part of those who feel the game is currently "too grindy."

Most likely. I don't think players should need to resort to using indestructible terrain in order to defend their bases, so how raids and defenses interact will likely require some kind of rework or overhaul. Still, buffing stone to make stone actually worth using aside from aesthetics would be a good stop-gap while the devs work on content.

[Soulstinger]

We could add additional ways to toughen existing structures to achieve the same end.

Perhaps making the Ward item add resistances to existing structures, or a new type of 'ward' place-able that accomplishes this.

[Rhapsody]

Originally posted by TVMAN:

I mean, vikings did not historically use magic as added in the mistlands either, so I think historical accuracy is a second priority to gameplay as far as the vision the devs have for the game goes.

Well, they did have spells for making pants out of dead man's skin and make coins appear from the pockets. I think if surtlings and "eitr" existed, they would have taken those and fashioned improvised incendiary weapons as well. :P Gameplay always comes first of course.

Regarding wood and stone as different tiers, stone also serves as a better foundation, and is less suspectible to fire damage (screw you, gjall, face my ROCKS). Additionally, you can combine the two (and other materials), making a greater sum out of the parts, in this way for example:

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2902215088

So it doesn't come down to just raw stats but also how different components and materials are put to use. :) Even today, people use wooden fences a lot since they are economical and usually entirely serviceable for their purpose, even if better materials were available. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Also, it'd be kind of boring if everything was made out of the same homogenous mass of different color for each construction tier.

[TVMAN]

Originally posted by Soulstinger:

We could add additional ways to toughen existing structures to achieve the same end.

Perhaps making the Ward item add resistances to existing structures, or a new type of 'ward' place-able that accomplishes this.

Honestly I'd be fine with that as well. Anything to keep stone from feeling like paper when it comes to resisting raids. Being able to reinforce your structures like that would also be a good way to give wards some other purpose other than glowing and annoying your server-mates by denying access to chests and doors.

Originally posted by Rhapsody:

So it doesn't come down to just raw stats but also how different components and materials are put to use.

I'm highlighting the raw stats in order to point out that stakewalls are disproportionately tough compared to the amount of effort it takes to acquire and build with stone. 1500 durability isn't really worth it when the material requires beating at least two bosses and smelting iron. It was really just meant to be a 1 to 1 comparison between the two materials. Sure, you could toughen your defenses by layering on additional materials like cage walls and log beams, but indestructible terrain walls still makes that effort entirely pointless outside of aesthetics.

I think it's worth noting that I'm talking purely from a gameplay perspective. Personally speaking, my current project is a stone and wood castle because I build more for aesthetics than efficiency. I feel like the game should also encourage that. Making the player spend tons of resources and time to build defenses when modifying terrain works better for that just feels contrary to the intent of the game.