About the Custom Packs! :)

[LazDude2012]

Knowing some java doesn't equate to the level of skill someone like Eloraam has. I'd love to see you try to write code as elegant and smooth as she produces in the same time frame. You also assume that all of these potential modders have the time to make those mods. Why aren't they providing alternatives already?

1. I had a nice project table mod, (my first Java experience by the way, I'm usually a C# programmer) in a week. It was cool, it had my little flair.
2. Eloraam hasn't got much free time either. Last time I heard, she was pulling 70-hour work weeks.
3. I can't speak for all of them, but I put development of my mods on hold because they were no longer needed when RP2 released. Maybe others feel the same.

I'm more than a little shocked by the self-entitlement that is simply assumed here. You simply assume that the mod authors will continue to write mods, no matter how much you abuse them. You assume that they should make things more convenient for you, and accuse them of being egotistical/greedy/petty because they don't. Guess what... your convenience is not, and should not be, their primary driving force. Instead of being thankful for what is being provided, you complain that you are entitled to more.

Before you get into the whole 'customer service' farce, allow me to preemptively debunk it. You aren't a customer. You aren't paying a dime for what they produce. They owe you nothing. Your option is to either accept their terms and conditions, or decline to use their mods and launchers, and continue going about it as you have. The FTB Launcher has already 'idiot proofed' mod use to a trivial degree, even moreso than the MMC Config Packs have. If you don't want to use one of their packs... that's your decision. Your alternative is to make your own custom pack and distribute it privately to those on your server. However, the FTB Launcher is too public a venue to call it a private distribution.

Nice, juicy argument here. Let's take this apart piece by piece.

1. You're the only one assuming I feel entitled.
2. Redistributing their free mods is not abuse.
3. I'm not asking for any sort of convenience. I'm simply asking that they not be so petty over redistribution. No effort on their part.
4. Strawman. I hold no such beliefs.

Your second paragraph there is one big strawman; I never assumed I was a customer of any sort, or entitled to any service. Let's pick it apart anyway, shall we?

5. MultiMC's config packs weren't "idiot-proof" at all. They were almost as bad as installing it manually. (Which I've done on many occasions, by the way)
6. I do make my own custom pack. Now, it's a Technic Launcher custom zip. My point wasn't about these things, it was that FTB's custom pack feature was worse than doing it the old way (MultiMC instance on Dropbox).
7. FTB launcher is too public a venue to call it a private pack? Please. That's like saying my private program, EnigmaSim, isn't private because it runs on Windows, which millions of people use. They don't have EnigmaSim, do they? The private packs are only distributed to those with the code/link.

 

[Entropy]

For example their is nothing stopping me from making a tekkit lite, mindcrack, direwolf, and any other pack with optifine pre-installed and any other highly requested mods. Which I could then advertise to those that are requesting those mods to be added to said mod packs to use even thou I and FTB/technic do not have permission for them. Note I am not saying that I would do this but I see others doing it in the future.

it's been happening for awhile, and I've been using one such modpack for awhile, public in the sense that only goons could find it. I won't delve into any arguments here, because nobody (including me) can make a good argument. I personally believe it's a better way to play mods than dealing with FTB or Technic, but that's the goon talking. I will agree with both Laz and Schneeky, as both have legit points, but the conversation isn't really going anywhere.

 

[ShneekeyTheLost]

1. I had a nice project table mod, (my first Java experience by the way, I'm usually a C# programmer) in a week. It was cool, it had my little flair.
2. Eloraam hasn't got much free time either. Last time I heard, she was pulling 70-hour work weeks.
3. I can't speak for all of them, but I put development of my mods on hold because they were no longer needed when RP2 released. Maybe others feel the same.

There's a world of difference between a project table mod and something as big as RP2.

Nice, juicy argument here. Let's take this apart piece by piece.

1. You're the only one assuming I feel entitled.
2. Redistributing their free mods is not abuse.
3. I'm not asking for any sort of convenience. I'm simply asking that they not be so petty over redistribution. No effort on their part.
4. Strawman. I hold no such beliefs.

Your second point rebuts your first point quite handily, and is one I do not agree with. It's the old GNU argument in reverse... Free as in Free Beer does not equate Free as in Free To Distribute. This manifestly disproves your fourth point at the same time. You feel you are entitled to unlimited distribution over someone else's code. That... pretty much defends my own argument better than anything else I could say. You also directly call them petty in your third point, which is precisely what I said you call them. No straw men here, just quoting what you wrote.

Your second paragraph there is one big strawman; I never assumed I was a customer of any sort, or entitled to any service. Let's pick it apart anyway, shall we?

5. MultiMC's config packs weren't "idiot-proof" at all. They were almost as bad as installing it manually. (Which I've done on many occasions, by the way)

I suggest you take another look at them. Once you have the mods downloaded, you can switch config packs in a matter of moments. So you're already playing on a DirePack and a Mindcrack Pack SSP. Now you want to play with DirePack, but you want GregTech and Traincraft installed. Well, a Config Pack can let you do that with ZERO additional downloads, because you've already GOT all the mods on your computer already. So it's actually far SUPERIOR to a ModPack once you have the mods on your computer. Since it's a good bet you've got all the 'major' mods downloaded already, the only ones you might need to download are the 'marginal' ones, which tend to be a small percentage of the mods on a server pack.

6. I do make my own custom pack. Now, it's a Technic Launcher custom zip. My point wasn't about these things, it was that FTB's custom pack feature was worse than doing it the old way (MultiMC instance on Dropbox).

Then don't use it.

7. FTB launcher is too public a venue to call it a private pack? Please. That's like saying my private program, EnigmaSim, isn't private because it runs on Windows, which millions of people use. They don't have EnigmaSim, do they? The private packs are only distributed to those with the code/link.

It's more like having EnigmaSim built in to every edition of Windows, but you can only access it if you have the proper code. If that code gets more widely distributed, then anyone who runs Windows can use it. In the case of your old Dropbox method, that's on you. It's up to you to not widely distribute it, nor allow it to be widely distributed. FTB Launcher team is not willing to take that risk. That's their decision.

 

[LazDude2012]

Wow. No, entitlement isn't the issue here, they've put it out there. They don't want it distributed? They shouldn't have put it out there.
Second, they are being petty about redistribution. In any other community, it's not a big deal. The modders are happy with credit and the occasional donation.
Thirdly, how in the world could redistributing their mods be abuse? Nobody's harming them in any way, nobody's insulting them, they're merely playing the mods. Not a big deal.
Fourth, the config packs were bad by design, because they forced you to wait through the adfly links for the mods. Forced adf.ly is always bad. Modders that don't provide mirror links are not modders I respect.
**Edit: that doesn't mean I refuse to use adf.ly links. If I respect a modder, I likely will use their adf.ly links. But it should be an option, a choice. **
Fifth, the private packs aren't by any means built into the launcher. It's the same scenario as the MultiMC/Dropbox method (from the end user's perspective anyway) except instead of a link, it's a code.
Sixth, the "oh noes mah copy writes" attitude of the MC community is terrible, especially considering Mojang's kindness to that community in the first place. If it had been any other game company, the modders would be having their pants sued off for decompiling. Mojang is kind and allows people a lot of liberty with Minecraft. Shouldn't the modders pass this kindness down the chain?

 

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Wow. No, entitlement isn't the issue here, they've put it out there. They don't want it distributed? They shouldn't have put it out there.
Second, they are being petty about redistribution. In any other community, it's not a big deal. The modders are happy with credit and the occasional donation.
Thirdly, how in the world could redistributing their mods be abuse? Nobody's harming them in any way, nobody's insulting them, they're merely playing the mods. Not a big deal.
Fourth, the config packs were bad by design, because they forced you to wait through the adfly links for the mods. Forced adf.ly is always bad. Modders that don't provide mirror links are not modders I respect.
**Edit: that doesn't mean I refuse to use adf.ly links. If I respect a modder, I likely will use their adf.ly links. But it should be an option, a choice. **

I think we're simply going to have to agree to disagree. I am of the opinion that one should respect the coder's wishes. You apparently don't. Also, Ad.fly pays pittance, it is normally used to pay for the hosting fees for their wiki.

Fifth, the private packs aren't by any means built into the launcher. It's the same scenario as the MultiMC/Dropbox method (from the end user's perspective anyway) except instead of a link, it's a code.
Sixth, the "oh noes mah copy writes" attitude of the MC community is terrible, especially considering Mojang's kindness to that community in the first place. If it had been any other game company, the modders would be having their pants sued off for decompiling. Mojang is kind and allows people a lot of liberty with Minecraft. Shouldn't the modders pass this kindness down the chain?

It is not entirely the same scenario, unfortunately, because the FTB team then becomes the distribution center for your server pack, and they do not wish to be held responsible if one of your guys starts giving everyone the server code.
With your Dropbox scenario, if one of your guys starts giving everyone your dropbox link and it suddenly gets hundreds of downloads and becomes the next Technic Pack... the accountability falls to the distributer... YOU.

The Config Pack scenario is completely different because it doesn't distribute the mods in the first place.

You are, bluntly, taking that risk by using a dropbox link to distribute your server pack. It is your right, yes, but it is also out of your hands if that is abused by someone it is distributed to, and responsibility will fall on your shoulders, ultimately, if it is.

The FTB team doesn't want to take that risk. Considering your attittude, I don't blame them. You apparently don't see a problem in freely distributing that code, and the responsibility for your actions would fall ultimately on the FTB team.

As far as your last post, it's not about copyrights. In case you haven't noticed, I've never ONCE brought that up in this debate. Copyrights are a pointless debate and irrelevant to the point. What mod developers *should* do is, again, your sense of entitlement impressing what you feel you are entitled to onto a third party who, in fact, is not required to do any such thing.

Being nice, or what should be, doesn't matter. What matters is the simple fact that it is rude to use someone else's code without their permission. Rudeness should not beget rudeness, that's a downward spiral that decends into some very bad places.

In fact, this isn't the first iteration of that downward spiral. Why are the mod authors so up in arms about this in the first place? Because when they asked Technic to remove their mods from the pack... they refused. They flat out told the mod authors "You can't make us".

Granted, that viewpoint has since changed, I'm not saying that the *current* Technic team would say such a thing (although demonstratablly the technic forum-users certainly would, but their opinions don't matter here).

From there, you had actions such as what SirSengir did to get his mod removed from the pack, and the spiral decended further. I'm not saying that the actions were or were not appropriate, that's irrelevant to this point.

Before that happened, there was a lot of trust between the mod authors and the users. That trust was pretty thoroughly shattered by those actions. Trust takes a while to regain. It might well happen one day. But you generally catch more flies with honey than vinegar... try some manners, it might get you further than high-handed demands you have no right to make.

Edit: Gee, the WYSIWYG editor packed up and went home for my post. Sorry about the wall of text, should be fixed now. Good thing I know a bit of HTML

 

[LazDude2012]

I'm done with you. Done. You seem to be as firmly entrenched as I am.

However, in any other community we wouldn't have had this argument. Only here in Minecraft.

 

[LazDude2012]

BTW: I'll be starting development of my mods back up, just to prove you wrong. How does the "Doesn't Give a Damn Licence" sound?

The mods' names will be Convenient Crafting Systems, Compact Redstone, and LazDude's Motorised Blocks.

 

[ShneekeyTheLost]

BTW: I'll be starting development of my mods back up, just to prove you wrong. How does the "Doesn't Give a Damn Licence" sound?

Sounds like the GNUv3 licsense which EE3 is being released under, actually. Contrary to popular belief, not every mod author is a shtickler about mod distribution.

The mods' names will be Convenient Crafting Systems, Compact Redstone, and LazDude's Motorised Blocks.

Sounds like a lot of fun. I'd love to see it when you get it to a release version.

 

[LazDude2012]

Well, I have an old prerelease of CCS around my computer somewhere, but I'll be getting it to a much more complete version before pre2.

 

[Caito]

One thing I don't get. I saw an argument that you need permission to distribute the mods and I agree with that. But with the private packs it isn't us (the players) who are distributing the mods, it is the FTB team and they already have permission from the mod devs. So why do we have to go and ask for permission?

 

[danidas]

One thing I don't get. I saw an argument that you need permission to distribute the mods and I agree with that. But with the private packs it isn't us (the players) who are distributing the mods, it is the FTB team and they already have permission from the mod devs. So why do we have to go and ask for permission?

A lot of the modders that gave FTB permission did so with the limit that they only have permission for their official packs also if you want to add any mods not part of a current pack you would need permission for them.

 

[Larroke]

Getting individual pack permission for private packs will flood the mod developers for permissions, which means in all likelihood most if not all of the requests will be ignored. Almost all the Youtubers / mod developers of mention are involved in the pack or friends of the mod authors and already have permissions.

Commercialized servers.. are another beast and should be treated completely differently and it is expected you get permissions to use other peoples work no matter the license.

The permissions for FTB launcher to distribute a slightly different pack of mods then their standard packs should be relatively straightforward to work out generally so long as its distributed through the FTB launcher. This is how it should work. The WIKI for FTB mod should slide some of the revenue from individual mod sections to the authors to keep these streams alive for the authors, while general and wrapper page ads can slide it towards the FTB development group.

 

[ratchet freak]

FTB CANNOT receive any money whatsoever if FTB has any ads several authors will retract permission

 

[Spoo]

I can understand the issue with allowing new mods to be included in "private" packs (since the feature could be abused). However, if a modder is already allowing their mod to be in an existing FTB public modpack, what justification is there for being upset about their mod being included in a FTB private pack? The only difference I can see smacks of elitism. Certain people (the FTB team) are worthy to decide what combinations of mods can be easily played together, and others aren't (everyone else).

 

[ShneekeyTheLost]

I can understand the issue with allowing new mods to be included in "private" packs (since the feature could be abused). However, if a modder is already allowing their mod to be in an existing FTB public modpack, what justification is there for being upset about their mod being included in a FTB private pack? The only difference I can see smacks of elitism. Certain people (the FTB team) are worthy to decide what combinations of mods can be easily played together, and others aren't (everyone else).

It's not a matter of granting permissions for private packs so much as that when you distribute it through the FTB launcher, it's no longer 'private'.

Technically, you really don't NEED permission to get mods for a private pack, however the risk of the private pack getting widely distributed is on you if you choose to host it on something like DropBox for your server users. If one of your server users decides to start posting it everywhere, then you get the blame for it, because you're the one who put it on DropBox to get distributed in the first place.

Likewise, if the FTB Launcher allowed private pack distribution like that, the blame would fall to them if someone abused the system. I don't blame them for not wanting to take that risk, it would be an enormous drama bomb.

There's NOTHING stopping you from making your own server pack. Plenty of people did it back before FTB, or even before Technic (in fact, that's what Technic started off as, before Yogscast made them so wildly popular). However, the FTB Launcher team doesn't want to be the venue for distribution because they don't want to take that kind of risk.

 

[Caito]

It's not a matter of granting permissions for private packs so much as that when you distribute it through the FTB launcher, it's no longer 'private'.

Technically, you really don't NEED permission to get mods for a private pack, however the risk of the private pack getting widely distributed is on you if you choose to host it on something like DropBox for your server users. If one of your server users decides to start posting it everywhere, then you get the blame for it, because you're the one who put it on DropBox to get distributed in the first place.

Likewise, if the FTB Launcher allowed private pack distribution like that, the blame would fall to them if someone abused the system. I don't blame them for not wanting to take that risk, it would be an enormous drama bomb.

There's NOTHING stopping you from making your own server pack. Plenty of people did it back before FTB, or even before Technic (in fact, that's what Technic started off as, before Yogscast made them so wildly popular). However, the FTB Launcher team doesn't want to be the venue for distribution because they don't want to take that kind of risk.

But FTB has permission to distribute the mods. It isn't we who are distributing the mods it's ftb. We are just asking ftb to put this and this mod in this modpack.

Giving someone the code for the modpack is like giving someone the link to the ftb page or the link to a mod.

So the whole thing of asking for permission is redundant since permission has already been given. At least that's how I think of it.

 

[Caito]

I can understand the issue with allowing new mods to be included in "private" packs (since the feature could be abused). However, if a modder is already allowing their mod to be in an existing FTB public modpack, what justification is there for being upset about their mod being included in a FTB private pack? The only difference I can see smacks of elitism. Certain people (the FTB team) are worthy to decide what combinations of mods can be easily played together, and others aren't (everyone else).

Yeah if you want a mod that isn't in any of the current packs then you should ask for perm otherwise it has already been given.

 

[Dravarden]

Well, if I was the creator of a gigantic mod, and people were rude, I wouldn't mind, simply because my mod will be famous, and people be using it, and that's what matters if you do it as a hobby, if you are a pedant-arrogant bastard that want his mod only to be used alone with vanilla, then they deserve it.

 

[ShneekeyTheLost]

But FTB has permission to distribute the mods. It isn't we who are distributing the mods it's ftb. We are just asking ftb to put this and this mod in this modpack.

Giving someone the code for the modpack is like giving someone the link to the ftb page or the link to a mod.

So the whole thing of asking for permission is redundant since permission has already been given. At least that's how I think of it.

No, the Mod Packs which FTB distributes have permission for inclusion in those specific mod packs. The FTB team as a whole does not, to my knowledge, have blanket permission to distribute every mod as they see fit. There's a WHOLE world of difference between the two.

 

[GearSB]

The giant argument seems to have made my ideas go unnoticed.

First, and the easiest to implement, is to make some sort of system for private modpack makers to ask mods for permission in one convenient place, where they know the mod authors will actually look at their requests instead of simply deleting them as spam from their inbox's.

Second, is to build an authentication system into FTB, where mod authors can choose from several permission options, such as:

1. Universal - anyone can use the mod in FTB modpacks, be it a public pack like Mindcrack, or a private pack.
2. Open - any private pack can use the mod, but not new public packs, the only security on it is the server operators distributing the code.
3. Closed - FTB implements an authentication system into itself, which limits a closed private modpack to only authorized servers and the players whitelisted on those servers. everyone on the internet can get the code for it, but it will only work for those who play on those servers. Mods with Closed permissions are only available to authorized servers and players through FTB.
4. Conditional - what we have now, where every mod pack, whether public or private, has to get permission for each one.