RC/ReC/ElC/CC Policy Changes

[Reika]

Open permissions.

This was not your position a month ago...

Now if you say that I don't *need* to get the approval or consent of all the mod devs as the others don't ask for it then I'll have to agree. But. If you believe it's all right to require it for *one* mod to ask it then I believe you must also have to agree, logically, that it's all right for *every* mod dev to require the same.

Should they need it, yes. However, as has been addressed 20 or more times here and elsewhere, that is not, will not, and could not realistically become the case. It is sufficiently unrealistic that it has zero credence of an argument (at least, as long as you are focused on practicals rather than principles, which I am), on par with a hypothetical like "what if mod X forbade me from asking permission for mod Y".

If you're hard set on wanting to approve alterations

Wait...did you actually see the revision? Not all alterations would need explicit approval in the sense you are using it.

I can think of one way of doing so that isn't much of a hassle to your legit users. A simple one too. 'Sanctioned' mods and modpacks. Ones with the official 'Reika Stamp of Approval'. And that would make support easy for you too. You can say you only support the sanctioned ones whilst letting people have fun running wild with their unsupported and unsanctioned ones. If people want their modpack to grow and go more public then they'll likely come to you *wanting* to get it sanctioned. Which is a good thing. It'll feel more like something they *want* to do rather than something to which they're *forced* to do. There's little *functional* difference between them, but you gotta admit that one feels far more friendly than the other.

Please elaborate; this sounds...interesting.

I disagree. I think that the majority of active/informed users (I'm omitting a vast amount of players here I know, but ultimately they are, as @Pyure said, non-entities)

And as I have said before, discounting them and ignoring their views when they exist in the numbers they do is a recipe for disaster.

 

[Strikingwolf]

And as I have said before, discounting them and ignoring their views when they exist in the numbers they do is a recipe for disaster.

The people who will ultimately determine if your mod is popular are the active members of the community because those are the members that create modpacks. And the majority of users that you are talking about play exclusively modpacks. Thus, if the active members dislike it the regular users will never even experience it. Also, this is talking about licensing, a large number of users don't know about licensing, they just pick up mods in packs and never take a look at the licensing stuff, therefore their opinions are null and void in most cases.

However, for other decisions that are primarily about gameplay their opinions do matter

 

[Reika]

The people who will ultimately determine if your mod is popular are the active members of the community because those are the members that create modpacks. And the majority of users that you are talking about play exclusively modpacks. Thus, if the active members dislike it the regular users will never even experience it.

This is true but not an argument that the opinions of the "uninformed majority" are not worth considering.

 

[SynfulChaot]

This was not your position a month ago...

It was. You misunderstood my position a month ago. That's what led to me growing quiet in this discussion.

Should they need it, yes. However, as has been addressed 20 or more times here and elsewhere, that is not, will not, and could not realistically become the case. It is sufficiently unrealistic that it has zero credence of an argument (at least, as long as you are focused on practicals rather than principles, which I am), on par with a hypothetical like "what if mod X forbade me from asking permission for mod Y".

Principles are the reason I take this stance, not solely practicals. Practicality has it's place, but not at the expense of principles. You may disagree with that point, but it's one that I won't concede as something that *I* consider important.

Wait...did you actually see the revision? Not all alterations would need explicit approval in the sense you are using it.

Yes I did, which is why I said 'approval or consent' in most places. I missed using that phrase in that one place. Apologies.

Please elaborate; this sounds...interesting.

I thought I summed it up quite succinctly. You'll need to ask more explicit questions. Preferably in PM.

 

[CapJackH]

Compare FTB Ultimate with Agrarian Skies, Running Red, and Material Energy. Those are two completely different experiences. The first is just a collection of mods, the second is a custom-crafted experience, a game in its own right. Because of this many people would like all mods to be open to editing to allow these types of packs to be made for all types of mods.

The people who will ultimately determine if your mod is popular are the active members of the community because those are the members that create modpacks.

Those modpacks which are games in their own rights have soooo much time put into them. If they want to have RC mixed in with other mods to form one giant balanced game it will take a ton of time, especially considering the vastness of a mod like RC. The amount of time that it would take to notify Reika of these edits is trivial compared to the time that they would invest to actually integrate RC to the extent that they would need permisison. I think the thing that might deter modpack makers from using RC isn't that they would have to talk to Reika about the edits, but simply integrating RC into a pack that deeply would be a highly involved task. Someone who is up to that type of task I don't think would shy away from simply asking.

 

[Pyure]

On the ftb subreddit, most people seem to be criticizing BR of its Dump yellorite, Get RF like nature lately. The cheaty multiblocks have finally seemed to getting some traction and popularity in opinion. All the flak for ReC and RC seem to be this giant circlejerk of people whining they can't edit Reika's mods without actually suggesting things they need changed.



This is a really good point. Mods don't have to be developed in the open source way academic papers are. Mods developing aren't like knowledge progressing where we have to go with majority rule. This is ultimately Reika's content that he graced us with by posting online. I don't think many users in the community believe that both of those types of development environments are acceptable.

Good points CapJack.

What I'd like to see is Reika to continue to maintain the niche he's carved out for himself rather than see it slowly sucked away from him. Ethics don't even factor into it at this point: it may just simply happen, for good or ill.

This isn't to say that one should always bow to the masses, but it does mean that a degree of wisdom is important when picking your battles. Unwavering resolution is one thing, complacency is another.

 

[Strikingwolf]

This is true but not an argument that the opinions of the "uninformed majority" are not worth considering.

I would like your opinions on the second half also before I write a full counter-argument. However, I believe that the uninformed majority is worth considering, but they should have a significantly smaller impact than the active and informed. The uninformed majority is concerned with the end result: Gameplay. The active and informed care about both gameplay and how it factors into modpack making. Therefore, by having an open license you allow the pack makers to improve the fluidity and tightness of their packs, thus improving end gameplay result and also allows modpack making to be easier. This majority does not care about modpack making and licensing. They care about the gameplay result. Therefore, their opinions on licensing are generally non-existent. I've talked to a few of modded minecraft players that have never heard of licensing of mods. I've talked to a lot of modded minecraft players that don't care as long as the result is good gameplay. Ofc these are my personal experiences so I can't be completely solid in that result, but I do believe that it logically makes sense

 

[keybounce]

The worst case scenario is that the other version becomes way more popular than your version, and that's not a disaster, that's evolution.

Tell that to the mod developer who just had their mod pulled out from under them because the new version is more popular and they were sufficiently disliked that the community was willing to tolerate (or worse, openly embraced) it.

How many times do I need to explain that this is good and fine and wonderful? That's how improvement actually happens.

Evolution has nothing to do with "What's better".
Evolution has everything to do with "What is better in this given environment, given all the things out there".

As soon as you go from "Here's a wall with tons-o-mods on it, take the ones you want, and tweak them yourself" to "Here's some modpacks to select from", the question of which gatekeepers have put which mods past the gates becomes critical. Evolution is not "survival of the fittest". Evolution is "Reproduction of that which is selected". And the selection criteria may have nothing to do with "what is good", and everything to do with "what I like as the gatekeeper / pack assembler".

Lets not forget that someone actually posted a poll for "Alright people, we need to find a better person to be in charge of RoC, who should be given ownership of it" -- and got a fair number of people to respond to it.

If a pure RF version of RoC were to be developed, with gating basically made non-existent, and the bedrock-level weaponry toned way down to the point that it would no longer destroy a server, and that were to be added to a popular modpack as a high-powered tech add-on? Just by being in a popular modpack, it would get lots of hits/uses/counts. Just by being in a popular modpack, it would get people trying it out without ever knowing about the original form -- and there's nothing to compare it against in that pack.

That doesn't mean that the new version is better. It doesn't even mean that the end users tried both, and like version B better. It doesn't mean improvement. It means that the fitness for reproduction is higher in the one that goes into modpacks.

 

[Strikingwolf]

Evolution has nothing to do with "What's better".
Evolution has everything to do with "What is better in this given environment, given all the things out there".

As soon as you go from "Here's a wall with tons-o-mods on it, take the ones you want, and tweak them yourself" to "Here's some modpacks to select from", the question of which gatekeepers have put which mods past the gates becomes critical. Evolution is not "survival of the fittest". Evolution is "Reproduction of that which is selected". And the selection criteria may have nothing to do with "what is good", and everything to do with "what I like as the gatekeeper / pack assembler".

Lets not forget that someone actually posted a poll for "Alright people, we need to find a better person to be in charge of RoC, who should be given ownership of it" -- and got a fair number of people to respond to it.

If a pure RF version of RoC were to be developed, with gating basically made non-existent, and the bedrock-level weaponry toned way down to the point that it would no longer destroy a server, and that were to be added to a popular modpack as a high-powered tech add-on? Just by being in a popular modpack, it would get lots of hits/uses/counts. Just by being in a popular modpack, it would get people trying it out without ever knowing about the original form -- and there's nothing to compare it against in that pack.

That doesn't mean that the new version is better. It doesn't even mean that the end users tried both, and like version B better. It doesn't mean improvement. It means that the fitness for reproduction is higher in the one that goes into modpacks.

You have pretty much just said the problem with general AI

Now let me try to chew on your argument for a bit

Evolution has nothing to do with "What's better".
Evolution has everything to do with "What is better in this given environment, given all the things out there".

True, however that inherently means that unless we change the environment it is better. Thus it is the best solution because changing an environment is much harder than changing parts of it

As soon as you go from "Here's a wall with tons-o-mods on it, take the ones you want, and tweak them yourself" to "Here's some modpacks to select from", the question of which gatekeepers have put which mods past the gates becomes critical. Evolution is not "survival of the fittest". Evolution is "Reproduction of that which is selected". And the selection criteria may have nothing to do with "what is good", and everything to do with "what I like as the gatekeeper / pack assembler".

Ah, the classic argument against modpack's selecting what is good or bad. The problem with this mentality is that the user makes a conscious decision to play a modpack. Therefore modpacks are sorted by natural selection and thus lists of mods + configs are sorted by natural selection resulting in individual mods being selected.

Lets not forget that someone actually posted a poll for "Alright people, we need to find a better person to be in charge of RoC, who should be given ownership of it" -- and got a fair number of people to respond to it.

Otherwise known as the opinions of the uninformed. People should know that they can't just take RoC and not get community backlash. Therefore this fork would not succeed, but fail spectacularly. I think that most active people in the community (and thus modpack selectors) do not think that a transfer of ownership would fix anything if not done with the consent of both parties. Ultimately that would lead to more drama and BS than it is worth to them.

If a pure RF version of RoC were to be developed, with gating basically made non-existent, and the bedrock-level weaponry toned way down to the point that it would no longer destroy a server, and that were to be added to a popular modpack as a high-powered tech add-on? Just by being in a popular modpack, it would get lots of hits/uses/counts. Just by being in a popular modpack, it would get people trying it out without ever knowing about the original form -- and there's nothing to compare it against in that pack.

Going back to the above reasoning because of recursive natural selection that means that people like the pure RF version more. However, this does bring up a good point. They may never know about the original form. This actually points me towards an open license where derivative works would have to have a tribute to the original somewhere noticeable.

That doesn't mean that the new version is better. It doesn't even mean that the end users tried both, and like version B better. It doesn't mean improvement. It means that the fitness for reproduction is higher in the one that goes into modpacks.

It actually does mean that the new version is better. Because in order to become a popular modpack it must be a good modpack or else if it was popular by the name attached to it its popularity will decrease dramatically after launch. Therefore the end gameplay experience was better than the original. That doesn't mean every user tried the old version, it means that the users that did, the active and informed who play newly released modpacks and determine if they become popular, enjoyed it more and then that snowballed into more users trying it and either liking it or disliking it. Assuming we have the above open license then if they disliked it they could try the initial mod

 

[Pyure]

Evolution has nothing to do with "What's better".
Evolution has everything to do with "What is better in this given environment, given all the things out there".

Um, what?

keybounce you're one of the sharpest peeps i know on the forum so i'll just link wikipedia and let you sort it out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution.

As soon as you go from "Here's a wall with tons-o-mods on it, take the ones you want, and tweak them yourself" to "Here's some modpacks to select from", the question of which gatekeepers have put which mods past the gates becomes critical. Evolution is not "survival of the fittest". Evolution is "Reproduction of that which is selected". And the selection criteria may have nothing to do with "what is good", and everything to do with "what I like as the gatekeeper / pack assembler".

You're giving the lambs a vote on whether its appropriate for lions to kill them. Granted you nailed evolution here a bit better, but the gatekeeper in this case is the dev rather than the pack assembler, and like all devs he's at constant risk of being displaced. What is good is irrelevant (as you say.)

Lets not forget that someone actually posted a poll for "Alright people, we need to find a better person to be in charge of RoC, who should be given ownership of it" -- and got a fair number of people to respond to it.

I don't recall anyone responding favorably to it, but I do remember chuckling at the audacity. I posted a rather severely worded rejoinder at the time as I recall.

If a pure RF version of RoC were to be developed, with gating basically made non-existent, and the bedrock-level weaponry toned way down to the point that it would no longer destroy a server, and that were to be added to a popular modpack as a high-powered tech add-on? Just by being in a popular modpack, it would get lots of hits/uses/counts. Just by being in a popular modpack, it would get people trying it out without ever knowing about the original form -- and there's nothing to compare it against in that pack.

That doesn't mean that the new version is better. It doesn't even mean that the end users tried both, and like version B better. It doesn't mean improvement. It means that the fitness for reproduction is higher in the one that goes into modpacks.

100% agreed here, but nothing here breaks my point in and of itself. (I'll add a notwithstanding: adaptability and superiority may correlate). Having said that, if one picks the unpopular battle, it doesn't matter if the product is better or worse or more or less ethical: Reika's stance is that he'd rather people didn't pull the rug out from under him. My stance is that there are trivial efforts he could make to improve his chance of preserving that goal.

That's not a "my way or the highway" statement, its just a prediction based on reality. At the end of the day, the lion doesn't care what the lamb votes, he just wants to eat.

 

[Reika]

I don't recall anyone responding favorably to it

I do. And even more, again including Watchful, FyberOptic, JoshieJack, and TomeWyrm (though to be fair, TomeWyrm's approval was reduced somewhat when he realized how much of an overhaul it really was), to the RF-ifier mod, which again I keep bringing up because you have repeatedly said that it is not a realistic example in the face of the contradictory experiences I have.

My stance is that there are trivial efforts he could make to improve his chance of preserving that goal.

Please state some.



Also, keybounce touches on a very important point:
If a broken version - especially a substantial design shift version - gets put in a popular pack, that will kill any popularity I have. Why? Because new users who liked the modified version will try the "real" version and leave in disgust or frustration (with some taking it out on me along the way). Meanwhile, users who would like the way RC is normally designed will be turned off of the mod, and will not think to try the real version. Remember: Not every change is obvious, and I personally find something like heavy tweaks to my mods even in a more "unmodified" environment like a kitchen sink pack - and thus leading to users not anticipating the scale of such changes - rather likely.

 

[Pyure]

Please state some.

Certainly. I'd love to see a wussmode config added for reactor craft. I've looked at the code, and it would be trivial to add a configuration option to prevent meltdowns.

I'm extremely aware of all the counter-arguments, including high risk for high gain, etc. I'm not interested, I'd still like to see this config purely for the increased attention it would give the mod. I have a pack in mind that I've been putting off for 6 months because I'd prefer to use ReC over other nuclear fission mods, but meltdowns are absolutely not an option for the target audience.

If a broken version - especially a substantial design shift version - gets put in a popular pack, that will kill any popularity I have. Why? Because new users who liked the modified version will try the "real" version and leave in disgust or frustration (with some taking it out on me along the way). Meanwhile, users who would like the way RC is normally designed will be turned off of the mod, and will not think to try the real version.

I actually strongly agree with this. I need to point out of course that you're also subject to the possibility of releasing such a broken version yourself.

 

[Reika]

Certainly. I'd love to see a wussmode config added for reactor craft. I've looked at the code, and it would be trivial to add a configuration option to prevent meltdowns.

I'm extremely aware of all the counter-arguments, including high risk for high gain, etc. I'm not interested, I'd still like to see this config purely for the increased attention it would give the mod. I have a pack in mind that I've been putting off for 6 months because I'd prefer to use ReC over other nuclear fission mods, but meltdowns are absolutely not an option for the target audience.

I very strongly doubt that anyone could be turned off by just that one feature. The target audience you seem to be describing would take one look at ReC's "figure it out yourself, copying a tutorial is a carnival of pain, and even it does not explode, you will tear your hair out trying to find out why your reactor does not work" design and go download BigReactors instead.

Also, options that violate my fundamental overarching principles are ones I do not want to add. For one, they risk becoming standard or seen as native because "big pack A" set it - remember the "HSLA as ingotSteel" incident - which is a major problem. Two, it opens the door to more and more people asking for more and more dramatic changes. You laugh it off now, but I start adding configs to turn off reactor meltdowns, and soon we will see requests for configs to turn off other failure modes, then some of the machine requirements (like temperature or pressure), then some of the gating, then actual design changes (like a "simple mode" for reactors were N cores = X GW of power) then ultimately...RF again. You may call all of those ridiculous, but each and every one has already been demanded by someone, and each and every one brings it closer to the design of mods like TE, making it highly likely to be desired by someone who wants that kind of "unified gameplay" in their pack. I flatly refuse all such demands now, but were I to start going down this path, those refusals would be painted in a less and less flattering light, and we would be right back where we are now, except the argument would be "Reika is being too controlling by forcing us to use his power system".

I need to point out of course that you're also subject to the possibility of releasing such a broken version yourself.

I fail to see how.

 

[Strikingwolf]

"Reika is being too controlling by forcing us to use his power system".

Don't have time to respond to the whole argument.

However, this in particular is plain wrong. Many mods have some kind of unique power system (most magic mods do in fact), but I do not see anyone demanding that Botania and Thaumcraft have the same power system.

 

[ljfa]

However, this in particular is plain wrong. Many mods have some kind of unique power system (most magic mods do in fact), but I do not see anyone demanding that Botania and Thaumcraft have the same power system.

Well afaik there is at a mod that provides RF -> mana etc. conversion, so there is some demand. But people demanding that or similar things don't realize or don't care that they take away from their own gameplay. I don't use such conversions and I wouldn't really know what to do in an RF-powered RoC.

 

[Strikingwolf]

Well afaik there is at a mod that provides RF -> mana etc. conversion, so there is some demand. But people demanding that or similar things don't realize or don't care that they take away from their own gameplay. I don't use such conversions and I wouldn't really know what to do in an RF-powered RoC.

Conversion is not full power system integration. RoC has magnetostatics, it is not an RF mod

 

[ljfa]

Conversion is not full power system integration. RoC has magnetostatics, it is not an RF mod

Well magnetostatics are designed so that conversion is non-trivial. In many other cases, conversions are basically made to subvert the target's power generation.

 

[Strikingwolf]

Well magnetostatics are designed so that conversion is non-trivial. In many other cases, conversions are basically made to subvert the target's power generation.

That's a difference in the mechanic of conversion, not of the choice of power systems

 

[Pyure]

I very strongly doubt that anyone could be turned off by just that one feature. The target audience you seem to be describing would take one look at ReC's "figure it out yourself, copying a tutorial is a carnival of pain, and even it does not explode, you will tear your hair out trying to find out why your reactor does not work" design and go download BigReactors instead.

Also, options that violate my fundamental overarching principles are ones I do not want to add. For one, they risk becoming standard or seen as native because "big pack A" set it - remember the "HSLA as ingotSteel" incident - which is a major problem. Two, it opens the door to more and more people asking for more and more dramatic changes. You laugh it off now, but I start adding configs to turn off reactor meltdowns, and soon we will see requests for configs to turn off other failure modes, then some of the machine requirements (like temperature or pressure), then some of the gating, then actual design changes (like a "simple mode" for reactors were N cores = X GW of power) then ultimately...RF again. You may call all of those ridiculous, but each and every one has already been demanded by someone, and each and every one brings it closer to the design of mods like TE, making it highly likely to be desired by someone who wants that kind of "unified gameplay" in their pack. I flatly refuse all such demands now, but were I to start going down this path, those refusals would be painted in a less and less flattering light, and we would be right back where we are now, except the argument would be "Reika is being too controlling by forcing us to use his power system".
I fail to see how.

You've successfully demonstrated yet again why you constantly get flak on this.

I am telling you...as the end-user...of a design flaw that you can easily fix and which has zero impact on your other users. Worse, I'm telling you of a major feature concern, and....I can hardly believe you said this...you're telling me that you don't think anybody feels that way.

Are you serious?

Have you ever...ever...developed professionally in the private sector?

Your talk of "opening doors" to dramatic changes is absolutely insane. Its like apple refusing to add video capability to their phones because people might ask for internet capability next. So the hell what if they do? YOU COMMAND THE CODE. Are you actually afraid of people submitting their ideas to you? Is that how you produce end user products?

Your concerns about overarching principals are likewise bizarre. You control the default settings. And you've already said a million times that almost nobody uses the configs, so now you're contradicting yourself. You cannot have it both ways.

The actual truth of the matter is that you're simply stubborn on the matter. I'm telling you, as an end user, that this is a good thing to do and that some other dev may get fed up and run with it, and your arguments are flat and boil down to "making a superior product would be mean to me."

I fail to see how.

Because you're not perfect. Just like other developers, you can make mistakes. Obviously you're less likely to, but it needed pointing out that the whole system doesn't fall apart when someone makes an error in it.

If I were ever the type of asshat that would maintain a wall of shame for posts, this one would top the list. I'm hoping its just because you were up at 3AM in the morning and tired.

 

[goreae]

Two, it opens the door to more and more people asking for more and more dramatic changes. You laugh it off now, but I start adding configs to turn off reactor meltdowns, and soon we will see requests for configs to turn off other failure modes, then some of the machine requirements (like temperature or pressure), then some of the gating, then actual design changes (like a "simple mode" for reactors were N cores = X GW of power) then ultimately...RF again.


I fail to see how.

Here's the thing. If a reactor melts down, it become chernobyl. There's a big explosion and the land becomes inhospitable. This could be a really bad thing for a pack where say you're flying on a ship in outer space and the ship has a reactor that powers it. If that melts down, the ship explodes and s exposed to the outer void. It also causes the ship itself to become toxic. This is not ideal for this sort of pack. Also in a skyblock situation where you have limited resources and space is more expensive than just walking a few hundred blocks, an explosion in the wrong place could be game over. The rector and most of everything else would be hard earned and would be a massive setback if it exploded, especially since that area is now toxic.

other forms of failure don't cause a game over, you can live with the requirements not changing, and the gating you'd have to conform to anyways in a modpack built around RoC. The reactor meltdown config isn't trying to change the mod as a whole, it's just what's right for certain packs where loss of items/land is a huge deal and you don't have the resources or space to make a new one any time soon.