[1.6.4] InfiTech Modpack [GregTech/Galacticraft hard-mode modpack] - DISCONTINUED

[MigukNamja]

I think I get where Reika is coming from : he wants to focus on content and not dealing with people who are misusing/abusing his pack and blaming him rather than the pack-maker. There are lots of packs out there that would do things counter to RoC's philosophy and then Reika would get blamed for *his* mod. Since there's not a way to allow only good/diligent pack-makers that understand the mod well to make tweaks while disallowing others who - as Reika has demonstrated above - do more harm than good, Reika is not supporting minetweaker.

I think that's fine for an eco-system / conversion pack such as RoC that is design the way it is, but it does indeed limit its ability to be included and balanced in packs like InfiTech where early-game resource acquisition is supposed to be very difficult/tedious/repetitive/OCD.

@Reika - My aim here is not criticism, but understanding and healthy, open conversation among enthusiasts.

 

[MigukNamja]

This brings me to another point, though. The stuff in RC that tends to unbalance other mods - mining, farming, and ore duplication - is nothing particularly new. The implementations are, but the BC has been around since something like beta 1.8, PowerCraft, MFR and other mods have had farming for as long as they existed, and IC2 started the macerator before I even knew what MC was (I joined in b1.8.1, and only tried mods some months later, and not big mods until 1.4.7). Yet they are now seen as normal, and few people see the need to "balance them". Why, then, are my machines fundamentally different? It almost makes it seem like people complain not because they want to modify something, but because they cannot, and I do not understand the concept of complaining about not getting something you do not want.

Agreed. While I think RoC *may* be better served in some enthusiasts (OCD) packs if it allowed minetweaker support, I respect and agree with your view that RoC is its own thing and - given the size and scope of the mod - is not intended to be easily balanced alongside all other MC mods that have similar functions. To enjoy RoC, you really have to use all of RoC and progress through RoC as intended.

Sounds a lot like GT

 

[Pyure]

This brings me to another point, though. The stuff in RC that tends to unbalance other mods - mining, farming, and ore duplication - is nothing particularly new. The implementations are, but the BC has been around since something like beta 1.8, PowerCraft, MFR and other mods have had farming for as long as they existed, and IC2 started the macerator before I even knew what MC was (I joined in b1.8.1, and only tried mods some months later, and not big mods until 1.4.7). Yet they are now seen as normal, and few people see the need to "balance them". Why, then, are my machines fundamentally different?

Unto themselves, they're not. A lot of people give you grief for this, and they're idiots. Yes, they're "OP" compared to similar machines 3 years ago, but that's completely irrelevant. Within the RoC mods themselves, they've become very well balanced and rather well tiered.

I think the issue is one of "the times". These days, there's so many mods out there that putting them together comfortably means making compatibility adjustments that have absolutely nothing to do with the in-game balance of any single mod. Generally this means either adjusting configuration files, or making Minetweak changes.

In terms of this thread's modpack, your tools are incredibly powerful. Your quarry is better, your macerator is better, your fission is better. In virtually all cases they're more fun too.
But since all its recipes are (considerably) cheaper, they instantly deprecate all comparable machines. Modpack makers who know what they're doing would benefit (deeply) from being allowed to adjust the thousands of recipes necessary to bring RoC machines in line with another mod (or vice versa, which is what generally happens instead)

I wonder if this would be a tolerable compromise for you?
"My mods' recipes have been tailored extremely carefully for performance and balance. By using Minetweaker on my recipes you accept that you void support you might receive otherwise."

The word "performance" is not an accident; it makes peripheral sense if you consider that spamming machines is not ideal.

The notion here isn't about forcing balance (gregoriusT) but providing options.

 

[Reika]

Unto themselves, they're not. A lot of people give you grief for this, and they're idiots. Yes, they're "OP" compared to similar machines 3 years ago, but that's completely irrelevant. Within the RoC mods themselves, they've become very well balanced and rather well tiered.

I think the issue is one of "the times". These days, there's so many mods out there that putting them together comfortably means making compatibility adjustments that have absolutely nothing to do with the in-game balance of any single mod. Generally this means either adjusting configuration files, or making Minetweak changes.

In terms of this thread's modpack, your tools are incredibly powerful. Your quarry is better, your macerator is better, your fission is better. In virtually all cases they're more fun too.

For this pack, maybe. But this pack is a rather niche design; RC is hardly alone in being a poor fit.

I wonder if this would be a tolerable compromise for you?
"My mods' recipes have been tailored extremely carefully for performance and balance. By using Minetweaker on my recipes you accept that you void support you might receive otherwise."
The word "performance" is not an accident; it makes peripheral sense if you consider that spamming machines is not ideal.
The notion here isn't about forcing balance (gregoriusT) but providing options.

While I do not have a problem with this sort of modification in theory, it is nonviable.
The most problematic users will be the ones who refuse to read the entirety of my rules - look at how people often react to being told to read the handbook or my OP with something along the lines of "I don't have time to read, just tell me what I want", and as such will be unaware of - or simply not care about - my making such a statement.
On top of that, even the most inept user considers themselves knowledgeable - arguably, even more so than someone actually knowledgeable does - and so something to the effect of "only change these if you know what you are doing" is not going to have any effect.
Moreover, the mechanisms RC has in place to prevent modification - or which do so by their nature, like the recipes being in the worktable - are of course unable to know the difference between a legitimate and an illegitimate modification, and removing them is not an option. Some, like the worktable, are gameplay features, and others are there to prevent things like "donator abuse", which, against the EULA or not, is still the prevailing practice on servers, or server admins who go "my server, my rules (and balance ideals), I don't care what anyone else wants".
Finally, by doing this I open myself up to aggression and criticism from people with entitlement problems who will not be satisfied with this newfound freedom, and instead then go on to complain about how I dare make it unsupported. As it is, I get hate from people who think I am "litterally [sic] hitler" for things like not supporting versions a year old or not supporting MCPC-specific issues.
And if you think I am making this up, let me tell you something. As you may or may not know, I have a special set of rule exceptions for non-techtree mods like GeoStrata (pre-crystal-removal) was. They were added in an effort to satisfy server admins who wanted to tweak the mods to fit their servers' balance better, yet still prevent problems like above. The response by the server I created them for? Basically "how dare you tell me what to do".
This sort of opinion is also echoed in several of the comments on that reddit link above; the kind of people who are the source of my problem are also the kind of people who are are not going to tolerate being told that they have guidelines to follow.

 

[Pyure]

For this pack, maybe. But this pack is a rather niche design; RC is hardly alone in being a poor fit.

Concur. But preference is given to the mods that are adaptable, right?

While I do not have a problem with this sort of modification in theory, it is nonviable.
The most problematic users will be the ones who refuse to read the entirety of my rules - look at how people often react to being told to read the handbook or my OP with something along the lines of "I don't have time to read, just tell me what I want", and as such will be unaware of - or simply not care about - my making such a statement.
On top of that, even the most inept user considers themselves knowledgeable - arguably, even more so than someone actually knowledgeable does - and so something to the effect of "only change these if you know what you are doing" is not going to have any effect.
Moreover, the mechanisms RC has in place to prevent modification - or which do so by their nature, like the recipes being in the worktable - are of course unable to know the difference between a legitimate and an illegitimate modification, and removing them is not an option. Some, like the worktable, are gameplay features, and others are there to prevent things like "donator abuse", which, against the EULA or not, is still the prevailing practice on servers, or server admins who go "my server, my rules (and balance ideals), I don't care what anyone else wants".
Finally, by doing this I open myself up to aggression and criticism from people with entitlement problems who will not be satisfied with this newfound freedom, and instead then go on to complain about how I dare make it unsupported. As it is, I get hate from people who think I am "litterally [sic] hitler" for things like not supporting versions a year old or not supporting MCPC-specific issues.
And if you think I am making this up, let me tell you something. As you may or may not know, I have a special set of rule exceptions for non-techtree mods like GeoStrata (pre-crystal-removal) was. They were added in an effort to satisfy server admins who wanted to tweak the mods to fit their servers' balance better, yet still prevent problems like above. The response by the server I created them for? Basically "how dare you tell me what to do".
This sort of opinion is also echoed in several of the comments on that reddit link above; the kind of people who are the source of my problem are also the kind of people who are are not going to tolerate being told that they have guidelines to follow.

Agreed with the concerns and sentiment but not the result. I can't function by working with the negatives (in this case, idiots or abusers). Call me overly optimistic, but I try to focus on the "good" people.

In this case, I'd say RoC is the exception. I haven't researched this, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the majority of "popular" mods (read: things in official FTB packs) don't have explicit no-minetweaker-rules for modpacks.

Btw I'm looking into your "what-are-your-issues" link; I didn't realize you'd had in-depth conversations on this topic already.

You quote your rule here (I presume the same is on your site, or similar)

Public packs must obey the following:
The pack must not use external mods to significantly change the way my mods work, such that a guide for the default setup would be misleading or useless for the pack (or vice versa), or that the mods' techtrees, if applicable, are radically altered, or that features are missing. This includes the use of MineTweaker and other similar tools to remove recipes or items!

I'm interested in two things: the word "signficantly", and the reference to breaking the information in the guide.

If a modpack maker made a single MineTweaker change to RoC: specifically making the Blast Furnace require a gating substance (such as, I don't know, Stainless Steel, which is a midgame substance in GT), would this qualify as a legal exception? It preserves the entire RoC chain, maintains viability of the guide, and only changes the entry requirement.

 

[Reika]

Concur. But preference is given to the mods that are adaptable, right?


Agreed with the concerns and sentiment but not the result. I can't function by working with the negatives (in this case, idiots or abusers). Call me overly optimistic, but I try to focus on the "good" people.

The good are also far less common and far less "in my face".

In this case, I'd say RoC is the exception. I haven't researched this, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the majority of "popular" mods (read: things in official FTB packs) don't have explicit no-minetweaker-rules for modpacks.

Because they both do not have inherent tiering and because few of them allow forum-form bug reports, instead demanding things like GitHub issue trackers, something I am not willing to do.

Btw I'm looking into your "what-are-your-issues" link; I didn't realize you'd had in-depth conversations on this topic already.

More times than I care to count.

I'm interested in two things: the word "signficantly", and the reference to breaking the information in the guide.

If a modpack maker made a single MineTweaker change to RoC: specifically making the Blast Furnace require a gating substance (such as, I don't know, Stainless Steel, which is a midgame substance in GT), would this qualify as a legal exception? It preserves the entire RoC chain, maintains viability of the guide, and only changes the entry requirement.

I would have no problem with that, as long as the material chosen is sensible and not either stupidly expensive (iridium) or something downright silly ("pig ingots"). So things like GT steel, electrum, TiC cobalt, are all fine. Iridium, emerald, manullyn, magic essence, and transformation powder are not.

Also, keep in mind a rare (not manufacturable by the player) resource is a bad idea, as it introduces the RNG.


EDIT:
I doubt this to be possible in RC as it currently exists, but I can try and implement some sort of mechanism to swap the redstone dust in the Blast Furnace recipe (or perhaps one of the stone bricks) with some other material, from a pre-approved list.

 

[Pyure]

I don't 100% agree, but I respect that its important to you.

I would have no problem with that, as long as the material chosen is sensible and not either stupidly expensive (iridium) or something downright silly ("pig ingots").

I'm curious, and personal question: why do you care? Me, I'd shrug at the oddness of others and get back to my projects. I can't see how it would negatively impact you ("y you mod need iridium-pigalloy!". I get that some people are that idiotic, but really the two or three of these per year who manage to randomly mash their keyboard enough to find your site and post something on it are almost profitable via your annual stupid-people-report.

So things like GT steel, electrum, TiC cobalt, are all fine. Iridium, emerald, manullyn, magic essence, and transformation powder are not.

Iridium's actually a crappy example. Its ore-gened, so you can theoretically find it and cook it on day 1 (RNG, per your concern below). A high-difficulty pack maker would not want to use it by itself. Iridium alloy plates on the other hand require RoC-like tiering to achieve, and would be more sensible.

Stainless steel is moderately easier to achieve in quantity than iridium alloy plate. I make no request as to whether this would satisfy you (you'd need to really get a feel for the mod), I'm actually fairly satisfied simply that the provision is there if someone wanted to leverage it.

Also, keep in mind a rare (not manufacturable by the player) resource is a bad idea, as it introduces the RNG.

Yep. Also, server abuse (donation rewards, etc)

 

[Reika]

I'm curious, and personal question: why do you care? Me, I'd shrug at the oddness of others and get back to my projects. I can't see how it would negatively impact you ("y you mod need iridium-pigalloy!". I get that some people are that idiotic, but really the two or three of these per year who manage to randomly mash their keyboard enough to find your site and post something on it are almost profitable via your annual stupid-people-report.

I addressed this earlier.

Iridium's actually a crappy example. Its ore-gened, so you can theoretically find it and cook it on day 1 (RNG, per your concern below). A high-difficulty pack maker would not want to use it by itself. Iridium alloy plates on the other hand require RoC-like tiering to achieve, and would be more sensible.

I have used IC2 fairly little.

 

[Jason McRay]

Big news everyone... InfiTech 2 for Minecraft 1.7.2 has been released. Check it here

(its still in beta, so few bugs will be probably present)

 

[MigukNamja]

Woot !

 

[Pyure]

awesome

 

[Aiwendil]

Guys, I'm out of date because I've been away, but some days ago you discussed iridium. Don't you know there are asteroids scattered around in the End? Most of them contain 1-6 Sheldonite Ore, which has chance for iridium when processed properly. All it takes is Adv Nano, fully zoomed-out minimap and some patience

 

[Killerke2012]

Hey guys! Can i ask what is the default map mod in this pack? Because i want to change it, but if i put another map mod in this pack, those map is only behind the default map. So i want to remove the default. Thanks!

 

[MigukNamja]

Hey guys! Can i ask what is the default map mod in this pack? Because i want to change it, but if i put another map mod in this pack, those map is only behind the default map. So i want to remove the default. Thanks!

Journeymap.

 

[Pyure]

Hey guys! Can i ask what is the default map mod in this pack? Because i want to change it, but if i put another map mod in this pack, those map is only behind the default map. So i want to remove the default. Thanks!

You're probably aware of this, but in case you aren't: there's an Infitech2 out as well, this version isn't being updated anymore