Really stupid things that people have said about Modded MC(Off topicness makes moderators tired)

[SynfulChaot]

On the topic of Serendipity, ...

They chose to shut it down *after* they resolved the problem by removing the offending store. As to why they shut it down, I won't dare to speculate. But the thing is that Fireball and the mod makers were in the right. Serendipity *was* openly breaking the EULA. Now you may think that Mojang went to far with it, but the fact of the matter is that the EULA outright *bans* the things that Fireball called them on. Not just slightly, but flagrantly. Now how it exploded outwards and became so public? Yeah. That was unnecessary. But that doesn't excuse Serendipity's behaviour.

I feel bad for the players of that community. I really do. But their admins could have remedied that issue so much better than they did.

 

[PierceSG]

Mods are free. Shared by authors. If people have problem with the particular mod author, they should just stop using it instead of bitching about the author and yet, still continue using the mod.

 

[Reika]

What I don't get is why this is so hard to comprehend. Have you NEVER administrated a server before?

I in fact do, but every one of its players are capable of updating my mods themselves, something they do at least once a day.

Look into what CoolSquid has for pack makers notifications, maybe that will be more acceptable

@CoolSquid
Care to show me?

 

[SynfulChaot]

I in fact do, but every one of its players are capable of updating my mods themselves, something they do at least once a day.

Unless the server is running that version, then updating the mod will break their ability to connect to the server. And by saying that you kinda confirmed Tome's statements, and mine, on you not comprehending the situation for server owners.

 

[Antaioz]

Unless the server is running that version, then updating the mod will break their ability to connect to the server. And by saying that you kinda confirmed Tome's statements, and mine, on you not comprehending the situation for server owners.

To be fair I'm not sure I'd want people playing on my server that are incapable or unwilling to do some simple drag 'n' drop mod replacing/updating. It's really not that hard to replace a few files guys.

It's sad that you used to be able to assume the player's were capable of replacing or updating mods, even if they needed a little guidance, and now asking a player to modify their modded instance in order to connect with the server is almost herecy...

 

[SynfulChaot]

To be fair I'm not sure I'd want people playing on my server that are incapable or unwilling to do some simple drag 'n' drop mod replacing/updating. It's really not that hard to replace a few files guys.

It's sad that you used to be able to assume the player's were capable of replacing or updating mods, even if they needed a little guidance, and now asking a player to modify their modded instance in order to connect with the server is almost herecy...

As a server admin, something I do *professionally* as well, it's highly unprofessional to expect your users to have to do things like that. I provide the server and I provide a link to the current version of the modpack, which I *also* maintain. I don't want to make it my users duty to update things themselves. I make things painless for them. That's *my* job if I'm doing it right.

 

[Azzanine]

Yeah... That Marquee is really starting to get fucking annoying.

I'd re DL the newer versions but chances are I'd get the message again the next morning when the mod updates again. Also I have just started looking at Chromaticraft and that mod has a pretty big file size x2+ the size of Thaumcraft 4... 27Meg isn't that big of a file TBH but DLing that once a day kind of erodes your internet cap kinda quickly. Yeah, I'm in one of those derro countries that caps internet with no real option for unlimited that wont cost you 100$+ a month.

Also the server admin concern isn't trivial, when you update Reika's mods you have to hope the other mods don't freak out and stop working. Usually they don't but it's in the back of server admins minds and something they always consider. As taking their server offline to fix mod versioning tribbles (not just yours but other mods that might react) can sometimes lead to a massive exodus of their players. Usually those players are the braindead twelvies you don't want around anyway but some admins want those kinds of players to pad out their player numbers (some admins enjoy watching their player capacity grow more then the actual game, server administration is like a totally separate game).
Also tutoring all the hoards of twelvies in how to install mods is probably more painful then headbutting a hard wood board studded with rusty nails and I am not 100% sure if that's an exaggeration...

I however don't have these problems as I play exclusively SSP these days, but I used to play on and run SMP servers so I feel their annoyance with this frankly obnoxious marquee and not wanting to have to update every day to get rid of it. I play modded minecraft, so I don't mind doing some work to get shit running, but you don't want things meant to be fun to be too much of a hassle. I'd be fine with the message being there for say 15-30 min then fading, or perhaps an "Okaaaaay Reika I'll update tomorrow /whine" command or button.

 

[Reika]

I had an idea. What about replacing the marquee with a hoverable "<!>" and a special config file where you need to specify a 10-character alphanumeric string (supplied by the hover text) for a given mod to turn off its display, where the <!> disappears if all mods are either up-to-date or are marked?

This string would change from version to version.

I'd re DL the newer versions but chances are I'd get the message again the next morning when the mod updates again.

People complain my updates are too infrequent, and you complain they are too rapid. This whole thing is unwinnable for me.

 

[1M Industries]

I had an idea. What about replacing the marquee with a hoverable "<!>" and a special config file where you need to specify a 10-character alphanumeric string (supplied by the hover text) for a given mod to turn off its display, where the <!> disappears if all mods are either up-to-date or are marked?

This string would change from version to version.



People complain my updates are too infrequent, and you complain they are too rapid. This whole thing is unwinnable for me.

I like it, not that I play with out of date versions.

 

[HeilMewTwo]

I had an idea. What about replacing the marquee with a hoverable "<!>" and a special config file where you need to specify a 10-character alphanumeric string (supplied by the hover text) for a given mod to turn off its display, where the <!> disappears if all mods are either up-to-date or are marked?

This string would change from version to version.



People complain my updates are too infrequent, and you complain they are too rapid. This whole thing is unwinnable for me.

Just don't effect the actual playing screen, that is actively interfering with gameplay then. A massive concern in every game is to make the GUi non-intrusive, and you are messing with it.

 

[ljfa]

I had an idea. What about replacing the marquee with a hoverable "<!>" and a special config file where you need to specify a 10-character alphanumeric string (supplied by the hover text) for a given mod to turn off its display, where the <!> disappears if all mods are either up-to-date or are marked?

This string would change from version to version.

Sounds a bit annoying to me.
What are you trying to achieve? Noticing the pack makers while hiding it from the end users?

People complain my updates are too infrequent, and you complain they are too rapid. This whole thing is unwinnable for me.

Probably more like "your major updates (v3, v4) are too infrequent and your minor updates (v4a, v4b) are too frequent"

 

[TomeWyrm]

I had an idea. What about replacing the marquee with a hoverable "<!>" and a special config file where you need to specify a 10-character alphanumeric string (supplied by the hover text) for a given mod to turn off its display, where the <!> disappears if all mods are either up-to-date or are marked?

This string would change from version to version.



People complain my updates are too infrequent, and you complain they are too rapid. This whole thing is unwinnable for me.

If it's in the main menu? Sure. If it disables when you're using the Version Checker mod? Sure.

End users actually have very little control over their ability to update much of the time. Even if they play single player, if they're playing on a server as well, they're going to have the server's modpack version just to prevent confusion; also because lazy, but I wouldn't want to play on a server with Monster 1.1.1, another with 1.1.2, and use a modified 1.1.2 with your fully updated 1.6 versions. That defeats nearly the entire point of using a launcher. Admittedly I personally would have a different multiMC instance for each server, but I build packs for fun and administer servers, I'm so far out of "average user" territory that my data point may as well be useless.

Part of the issue with the current method (for me at least) is that it's taking up UI space, in a place where like 15 things already want to put their crap (seriously, what IS it with that bit of the screen?). I personally ADORE the way that Dynious' version checker works. It's in the main menu, so it's not driving you batty when you have to relog or taking up frankly valuable UI space.

Unless that turns it off for the mod and persists through all sub-version updates (like v4a, v4b, v4c, etc would all stay off). That's acceptable to me, as long as it's not generated completely randomly. If I can't supply my pack users with this update notification display turned off, you're missing the point of this entire debate ; if my players log in and see an update notification, I've failed something somewhere. My players should NEVER have to see an update notification, it's not their job to deal with the modpack. As pack maintainer and server admin that would be my job.

==================================================

Your version updates are sporadic Reika. You go for long stretches with no updates while you're working on v1, v2, v3, v4, etc. and then until you start working on the next major release, you update more rapidly than basically any other mod I use. V4a, V4b, V4c? Out in rapid fire fashion. Version 5? I expect you're going to be working on that for a month straight once you start before it comes out.

 

[Antaioz]

Your version updates are sporadic Reika. You go for long stretches with no updates while you're working on v1, v2, v3, v4, etc. and then until you start working on the next major release, you update more rapidly than basically any other mod I use. V4a, V4b, V4c? Out in rapid fire fashion. Version 5? I expect you're going to be working on that for a month straight once you start before it comes out.

I'd call 4a/b/c 'hotfixes', not updates.
hotfixes are fast to fix problems.
This is how software works.

It's a bit baffling that some people are complaining that Reika has been putting out bugfixes fairly quickly and frequently following the release of v4.

 

[CoolSquid]

@CoolSquid
Care to show me?

Generate a file in the jar file during the first launch with some hashed info about the computer. On the next launch, hash the info again, and compare it to the info in the file. If it doesn't match the one in the file, don't show update warnings.

 

[Strikingwolf]

WHY does a mod author have any right to horse this choice onto me

*BURSTS OUT LAUGHING*
How can they horse it on you
xkcd plugin is best

 

[Strikingwolf]

Generate a file in the jar file during the first launch with some hashed info about the computer. On the next launch, hash the info again, and compare it to the info in the file. If it doesn't match the one in the file, don't show update warnings.

That's an awesome way to do it. It would avoid most of the pitfalls with modpacks. I mean the pack creator will have to deal with the marquee, but otherwise it is fine.

 

[tubbytoad42]

They chose to shut it down *after* they resolved the problem by removing the offending store. As to why they shut it down, I won't dare to speculate. But the thing is that Fireball and the mod makers were in the right. Serendipity *was* openly breaking the EULA. Now you may think that Mojang went to far with it, but the fact of the matter is that the EULA outright *bans* the things that Fireball called them on. Not just slightly, but flagrantly. Now how it exploded outwards and became so public? Yeah. That was unnecessary. But that doesn't excuse Serendipity's behaviour.

I feel bad for the players of that community. I really do. But their admins could have remedied that issue so much better than they did.

You don't have to speculate. I wrote out the reasons for our decision in the original post I made here. I suggest you and anyone else interested take a read before jumping to conclusions. I don't think anyone has a right to question our decision without knowing entirely what went into it.

People seem to have gone out of their way to lie, mislead and slander, especially on Twitter. For example claiming we said things we didn't say, or carefully snipping a forum screenshot to make it look like the opinion of a user is the view of the administration.

 

[Strikingwolf]

You don't have to speculate. I wrote out the reasons for our decision in the original post I made here. I suggest you and anyone else interested take a read before jumping to conclusions. I don't think anyone has a right to question our decision without knowing entirely what went into it.

People seem to have gone out of their way to lie, mislead and slander, especially on Twitter. For example claiming we said things we didn't say, or carefully snipping a forum screenshot to make it look like the opinion of a user is the view of the administration.

The entire problem was the store. Otherwise I highly respect keeping together such a large community

 

[ljfa]

People seem to have gone out of their way to lie, mislead and slander, especially on Twitter. For example claiming we said things we didn't say, or carefully snipping a forum screenshot to make it look like the opinion of a user is the view of the administration.

Exactly. That's not okay at all.
One should not overgeneralize like this.

 

[Strikingwolf]

Exactly. That's not okay at all.
One should not overgeneralize like this.

True. I still cannot accept that what Serendipity did was right. It was entirely wrong and in legal violation of a lot of things. Really with the anonymity of the internet we can't know whether or not those people did it or if they didn't. And @tubbytoad42 even though it irks me to say this. You or your network's staff could be lying about what they said. It is a tough situation, but because yall clearly violated the law and my personal ethics it seems to me as if yall are the ones in the wrong here, and thus I will put my trust in others