Best Melee Weapon (Damage) in Monster

[SatanicSanta]

lots of sentences

I agree with a lot of the things you say, but some of it is just wrong. Things like "A player should only have a say in how the server is run if they've actually put money into it." are just preposterous. Server admins should (and ones I play with do) talk with their players before making changes. If the players disagree, they don't change it. Being able to pay for a server shouldn't give them special privileges. Though, the ability to disable things from a mod are always nice.

And @Reika does the Bedrock sword break electric armor?

 

[MoosyDoosy]

Your argument seems to boil down to "server owners can afford to host, and that gives them special rights". Am I correct?

Also, the MPS breaking is obviously a bug, which I will fix in v16.

The MPS breaking might not be a bug. I've seen examples in the past where people taking massive amounts of damage from stuff (like the Ur-Ghast from Twilight Forest) causes the armor to be destroyed or even for it to show durability. And it can be repaired again by iron in an anvil.

 

[Reika]

I agree with a lot of the things you say, but some of it is just wrong. Things like "A player should only have a say in how the server is run if they've actually put money into it." are just preposterous. Server admins should (and ones I play with do) talk with their players before making changes. If the players disagree, they don't change it. Being able to pay for a server shouldn't give them special privileges. Though, the ability to disable things from a mod are always nice.

Too many people subscribe to that mindset, and I hate it, hence my decisions. I can understand that there are legitimate reasons to want to have configs, but for every one of them, there are ten of the people who think that more money = more rights.

And @Reika does the Bedrock sword break electric armor?

For now, probably. IC2 jetpacks, too.

The thing is, most powered armors are still damageable, but the "minimum" damage value is 1, and they are destroyed at zero, which is never naturally reached. RotaryCraft uses NBT tags for the charge/fuel data, and I suspect I assumed everyone else did as well when coding the bedrock sword.


What developers do I need to get into contact with?

 

[Reika]

Alright, this should be fixed, but I have no idea how much energy is appropriate to extract out of these armors upon impact. I picked 5000 because it is 1/6 of a TiC tool if given ThermalExpansion power support, but is that fairly standard or abnormally large/small?

        if (arm.getItem() instanceof MuseElectricItem) {
           MuseElectricItem ms = (MuseElectricItem)arm.getItem();
           ms.extractEnergy(arm, 5000, false);
         }
         else if (arm.getItem() instanceof IEnergyContainerItem) {
           IEnergyContainerItem ie = (IEnergyContainerItem)arm.getItem();
           ie.extractEnergy(arm, 5000, false);
         }
         else if (arm.getItem() instanceof IElectricItem) {
           IElectricItem ie = (IElectricItem)arm.getItem();
           ///???
         }
         else {
           arm.damageItem(100, target);
           if (arm.getItemDamage() > arm.getMaxDamage() || arm.stackSize <= 0) {
             arm = null;
             target.setCurrentItemOrArmor(i, null);
           }
           target.playSound("random.break", 0.1F, 0.8F);
         }

 

[Necr0maNceR]

Alright, this should be fixed, but I have no idea how much energy is appropriate to extract out of these armors upon impact. I picked 5000 because it is 1/6 of a TiC tool if given ThermalExpansion power support, but is that fairly standard or abnormally large/small?

Hopefully that will do it. For reference, these are the mods that I found to be affected by the armor breaking:

IC2 experimental developed by Player, Thunderdark, and GregoriusT. Modular Powersuits developed by Machine Muse. Blood Magic developed by WayofTime. There are numerous other mods in ftb that add various special purpose goggles/glasses and helmets that may or may not be intended as indestructible. As far as outside of ftb goes, who knows?

I agree with a lot of the things you say, but some of it is just wrong. Things like "A player should only have a say in how the server is run if they've actually put money into it." are just preposterous. Server admins should (and ones I play with do) talk with their players before making changes. If the players disagree, they don't change it. Being able to pay for a server shouldn't give them special privileges. Though, the ability to disable things from a mod are always nice.

Too many people subscribe to that mindset, and I hate it, hence my decisions. I can understand that there are legitimate reasons to want to have configs, but for every one of them, there are ten of the people who think that more money = more rights.

In the real world, giving people more rights for having more money would be terrible. The fact is, this is quite different. A person decides to start a server, so they invest their own money to run it, and time to manage it. Both from a technical standpoint, and through resolving issues between players. The server belongs to the Admin. It's like a toy, that they're sharing. A good Admin listens to his players when he makes a decision that affects the server as a whole, but in the end the admin has the final say, because it's their server. If players contribute money to help maintain the server, then they "own" part of the server, an the admin should no longer have the final say.

Of course, an admin should treat their players well simply because that's the right thing to. Even though they have the right to do what they want with the server they own, doesn't mean it's okay for them to be a douchebag. Plus, if an admin abuses their power, then their players will leave, and they'll have an empty server. Regardless, it's the admin's server, to do with what they will. Hopefully, they'll be nice and consider the players' opinions, but in the end they have, and should have, the final say regarding the server they own.

I can understand that there are legitimate reasons to want to have configs, but for every one of them, there are ten of the people who think that more money = more rights.

This still doesn't make any sense. Not giving players options simply because a few will try to abuse them is nonsense. The "admin deities" you speak of would still be pricks regardless, and could simply make a rule that players couldn't use a certain feature or they'll be banned. Refusing to add a config option for features like the armor breaking ability of the sword helps NO ONE and simply works to frustrate the vast majority that want config options for good reasons. Like balance. So your bedrock sword and armor aren't the "be all and end all" of weapons and armor on a server.

 

[Reika]

In the real world, giving people more rights for having more money would be terrible. The fact is, this is quite different. A person decides to start a server, so they invest their own money to run it, and time to manage it. Both from a technical standpoint, and through resolving issues between players. The server belongs to the Admin. It's like a toy, that they're sharing. A good Admin listens to his players when he makes a decision that affects the server as a whole, but in the end the admin has the final say, because it's their server. If players contribute money to help maintain the server, then they "own" part of the server, an the admin should no longer have the final say.

More often than not, the one hosting the server is doing so because they are the one most able to do so, either due to having available hardware or due to greater financial flexibility. Rarely is it the "I am doing this out of the goodness of my heart" altruism.

This still doesn't make any sense. Not giving players options simply because a few will try to abuse them is nonsense.

The "few" outnumber the others.

The "admin deities" you speak of would still be pricks regardless, and could simply make a rule that players couldn't use a certain feature or they'll be banned.

And that is fine. But I am not going to be an accessory to their actions by providing tools - i.e. config options - with which to do so.

 

[Necr0maNceR]

More often than not, the one hosting the server is doing so because they are the one most able to do so, either due to having available hardware or due to greater financial flexibility. Rarely is it the "I am doing this out of the goodness of my heart" altruism.

I never said they did it out goodness of their heart. I didn't say anything even remotely like that. What made you think I said something like that? All I said is that a good admin takes their players into consideration when making changes, and that even if an admin owns a server, they shouldn't be a douchebag to their players. I understand that admins start servers for all sorts of reasons. Some do it "out of the goodness of their heart" to create something others can enjoy. Some create a server because they want to enjoy playing on a server, and other people playing on the server simply increases the fun they have. Some create a server because they enjoy being an "admin deity" and treating others poorly. People create servers for many different reasons.

The "few" outnumber the others.

Do you honestly believe there are more people who would try to abuse config options instead of using them for the right reasons? Or is this supposed to be some sort of deep philosophical thing about minority rights? Regardless, not adding the config options isn't helping people like you think it is. Sure, there will be a few server owners who simply won't bother to do something about it if they don't like the armor breaking ability of the bedrock sword or some other feature of your mod, but only a few. Most will do something about it. It could be as simple as a rule saying that players can't use the bedrock sword against other players. Or they could ban the item outright. Or disable the mod entirely. Each option gives the player less and less control over their play style. If there were simply config options, then they would have much more freedom. You see, the player shouldn't have someone telling them to play how they don't want to play, that's why it's the player's job to find a server run by like-minded individuals. It's not your job to force people to use a certain play style. I understand wanting to keep the "purity" of your mod, but since you don't provide config options for things such as this, less people are able to enjoy it.

And that is fine. But I am not going to be an accessory to their actions by providing tools - i.e. config options - with which to do so.

By not providing a config options, you are forcing admins to make rules. If/when people try to break or circumvent these rules, there is strife. People get banned. There is hostility among friends. All in all, less fun for everyone involved. It may even be an accident, like the example from earlier in this thread when someone accidentally destroyed their friend's armor when they were exploring a dungeon. He didn't say whether the armor was expensive, but the charge based armors would be the easiest to accidentally destroy. Hopefully your fix will at least prevent that from happening again. Does your fix work on bound armor from Blood Magic? It doesn't have a charge. It draws energy from the players "soul network". What about armors that don't use any form of energy, but are still supposed to be indestructible? Was the last part of your fix for that? The exo armor from Tinkers Construct gets destroyed by the bedrock sword despite the fact it's supposed to be indestructible. Fortunately, that armor is an incomplete feature available only through creative, so it doesn't really matter. It does provide yet another example of a type of armor your sword destroys that it shouldn't be able to, though. Are you just going to keep tacking on bits of code as situations present themselves? You'll probably just have to keep adding code as new mods continue to add more types of armor. A simple config option for the bedrock sword would certainly be nice for situations like this.

 

[Reika]

Do you honestly believe there are more people who would try to abuse config options instead of using them for the right reasons?

Yes, often overwhelmingly so. For example, take the "max range" configs in RotaryCraft. They are there to mitigate the performance impact of extreme-range effects from things like the floodlight, light bridge, sonic borer, item vacuum, and bait box; the mob limits on the spawner controller are there for similar reasons. Number of people I saw tweaking them as per server capabilities? Zero. Number of people setting them to zero to effectively disable the machine? More than fifteen each.
Because of the importance of those options, I just added a mandatory minimum - usually 64 - to those options; a non-scaleable, option, however, would have been removed.

By not providing a config options, you are forcing admins to make rules. If/when people try to break or circumvent these rules, there is strife. People get banned. There is hostility among friends.

I do not know what kind of person would treat their friends in such a manner.

It may even be an accident, like the example from earlier in this thread when someone accidentally destroyed their friend's armor when they were exploring a dungeon. He didn't say whether the armor was expensive, but the charge based armors would be the easiest to accidentally destroy.

Simple solution: spawn it back in. If you claim that that is cheating, how is that any different from spawning it in after a player's inventory data file being lost?

Hopefully your fix will at least prevent that from happening again. Does your fix work on bound armor from Blood Magic? It doesn't have a charge. It draws energy from the players "soul network". What about armors that don't use any form of energy, but are still supposed to be indestructible? Was the last part of your fix for that? The exo armor from Tinkers Construct gets destroyed by the bedrock sword despite the fact it's supposed to be indestructible. Fortunately, that armor is an incomplete feature available only through creative, so it doesn't really matter. It does provide yet another example of a type of armor your sword destroys that it shouldn't be able to, though. Are you just going to keep tacking on bits of code as situations present themselves? You'll probably just have to keep adding code as new mods continue to add more types of armor. A simple config option for the bedrock sword would certainly be nice for situations like this.

Unintended interactions are always going to exist in modpacks, because no two items are coded the same way or do the same things. Any armor explicitly coded as indestructible should be so; any one sloppily done, probably not. My problem? No.

If we are going to start removing features because of unintended mod interactions, what about things like ore multiplication (some mods allow the ingots to be made back into ores)? Or custom 2-pass TileEntity renders (Optifine breaks)? Or mob farming (some mod may add an exploit)? Or any TileEntity (DartCraft force wrench/frames and world corruptions)? At this rate, you might as well play vanilla...and still not be rid of unintended behavior.

 

[SatanicSanta]

A lot of the servers I play on are run from friends' houses. Often times I also build the pack, shouldn't I get a say in what goes on in the pack?

 

[Necr0maNceR]

Yes, often overwhelmingly so. For example, take the "max range" configs in RotaryCraft. They are there to mitigate the performance impact of extreme-range effects from things like the floodlight, light bridge, sonic borer, item vacuum, and bait box; the mob limits on the spawner controller are there for similar reasons. Number of people I saw tweaking them as per server capabilities? Zero. Number of people setting them to zero to effectively disable the machine? More than fifteen each.
Because of the importance of those options, I just added a mandatory minimum - usually 64 - to those options; a non-scaleable, option, however, would have been removed.

That is a good example. They were using those configs as a way to disable items even though that wasn't the purpose of those configs. It's one thing for an admin to try to disable items they don't like for some reason, but this method resulted in the items being craftable, but useless. Wasting the time, effort and resources of those who crafted the items is definitely a terrible abuse of a config. Of course, your new minimum setting fixed that problem, so the config option is still available for those who would use it properly, and it is much harder to abuse for those that would try. That is a good way to make a config. Might I ask how exactly a config to remove the bedrock swords armor breaking ability would be abusive? By making it less overwhelmingly powerful? Even without that ability it is still a very good weapon. You could even compromise and implement a config like the above range-based ones, and merely allow players to reduce the amount of damage the bedrock sword does to armor, instead of preventing the armor damage entirely.

Despite that example, I still find it hard to believe that there are more people who would try to abuse your configs, especially one for the bedrock sword, as opposed to using them for the right reason. For starters, if the player is changing a config for a single player world, then it would be hard to argue that they are screwing themselves over, wouldn't it? So at the very least, all the single player personal config changes could only be for their own benefit. Then there are the "group of friends" type servers like you mentioned earlier. If they are all friends, then it seems unlikely that the admin would want to upset his friends if he wants to keep them. So for those cases, we can assume the majority of admins who made config changes wouldn't be abusing them to screw their friends over. Then there is the case of servers with a fair number of people who are strangers, or at the very least don't know each other very well. Abusing config options to screw people over is not a good way to keep people on a server. Thus, many avoid doing that.

Now when you take all that logical reasoning into account, along with the people who maybe, just maybe don't want to abuse the configs because they don't like screwing people over, then it seems hard to imagine that the majority of people who change them are trying to abuse them. Plus, if you simply make configs in a way similar to the revised range-based ones, then it's a non-issue. The configs will be abuse-resistant, if not outright abuse-proof.

I do not know what kind of person would treat their friends in such a manner.

I do not believe you understood what I was saying. For starters, not everyone on a server is necessarily friends. Some players can come in and try to break/circumvent the rules to cause problems. If a player accidentally breaks a rule and causes trouble, this can make people upset. Particularly if something is lost or destroyed in such a way that it cannot be easily fixed. Usually people don't get too upset, but if enough is lost or it happens a bunch, then they can start to get angry. Config options can prevent certain problems from being physically possible, thus reducing accidental destruction and the need for as many rules.

Simple solution: spawn it back in. If you claim that that is cheating, how is that any different from spawning it in after a player's inventory data file being lost?

It is quite different. An inventory data file being lost would be the result of a glitch. The armor being destroyed would be the result of an intentional game mechanic and a direct (if accidental) player action. That said, most admins would just spawn the player a new suit of armor, which would be the right thing to do. Of course, some servers have stricter rules than others. Like even if you destroy something by accident, if it wasn't a glitch and just an unintended mod interaction then it won't be undone. Even if the player is given new armor, several mods add very customizable armor. It could be difficult to prove, for example, what modules you have installed on your power armor. Even if the admin doesn't care whether you end up with more than you lost, that player may not want to get more than they lost because they feel it would be cheating, or less because it would be unfair. The problem being that they can't remember what modules they had.

Unintended interactions are always going to exist in modpacks, because no two items are coded the same way or do the same things. Any armor explicitly coded as indestructible should be so; any one sloppily done, probably not. My problem? No.

If we are going to start removing features because of unintended mod interactions, what about things like ore multiplication (some mods allow the ingots to be made back into ores)? Or custom 2-pass TileEntity renders (Optifine breaks)? Or mob farming (some mod may add an exploit)? Or any TileEntity (DartCraft force wrench/frames and world corruptions)? At this rate, you might as well play vanilla...and still not be rid of unintended behavior.

Might as well play vanilla? Lol. That's not any more of a valid argument than "might as well play creative". Different players like different degrees of balance. Some like to play hardcore with no exploits or "OP" mods. Some will let an exploit slide if the feature is fun enough, and will enjoy playing with powerful items even if they are "unbalanced". Ftb has a relatively loose balance, but they still avoid exploits like ingots into ores, don't have the gravity gun mod due to lightning causing mods and Twilight Forest's uncrafting table (also why they removed the portal gun from dungeon loot tables), and they also don't support optifine. Even if their balance is loose, they still seek to eliminate game-breaking exploits.

The ftb team makes heavy use of the available configs. While they sometimes remove features, they mostly just adjust values, choose one mod's ore generation over another, and such things. As I said, you could simply add a config to reduce the armor damaging effect of the bedrock sword, instead of removing it entirely. That way, that feature couldn't be completely removed.

Whether you add such a config or not, you should still work to fix cross mod bugs and exploits. Like that Blood Magic example. Did they code their armor sloppily? I do not know. If it turns out your sword is the only thing that damages their armor, then I'd hardly call their code sloppy or blame them for the problem. Whether you solve the problem on your end or they solve it on theirs, you should still reach a solution for this bug, and any other cross mod exploits regarding your sword as you encounter them in the future.

A lot of the servers I play on are run from friends' houses. Often times I also build the pack, shouldn't I get a say in what goes on in the pack?

If you helped make the pack then yeah, of course. Especially if the admin is spending a negligible amount of money on the server, and players work together to solve technical issues. The less the admin puts into the maintenance of the server, and the more the players put into it, the more of a say players should have. Even if the admin pays more money and puts more time into maintaining it, I've already said that they should always consider their players feelings.

 

[WayofTime]

Whether you add such a config or not, you should still work to fix cross mod bugs and exploits. Like that Blood Magic example. Did they code their armor sloppily? I do not know. If it turns out your sword is the only thing that damages their armor, then I'd hardly call their code sloppy or blame them for the problem. Whether you solve the problem on your end or they solve it on theirs, you should still reach a solution for this bug, and any other cross mod exploits regarding your sword as you encounter them in the future.

Blood Magic armour works by getting damage applied to it and then applying that damage to the player's Soul Network. If the Soul Network has nothing in it, it instead damages the player. What is more, the intended workings of having it coded like this is so that any armour-damaging weapon or attack would have a much stronger effect on a player with Bound armour.

Is it sloppily coded? I don't think so, although I am a tad biased. Saying something is sloppily coded, however, when not trying to figure out how it actually works? That is a classless decision.

There shouldn't be a reason why the Bound armour would retain any sort of damage applied to the armour, if that is what I gained from the conversation (speed reading is a blessing and a curse), since it reals itself every tick. (Max damage of the armour is 1001, for those curious.)

 

[Reika]

Might I ask how exactly a config to remove the bedrock swords armor breaking ability would be abusive? By making it less overwhelmingly powerful? Even without that ability it is still a very good weapon.

Not really, when compared to other things in RC and other mods. Most people I see using it are using it specifically for the armor damage.

You could even compromise and implement a config like the above range-based ones, and merely allow players to reduce the amount of damage the bedrock sword does to armor, instead of preventing the armor damage entirely.

A viable idea, but it would not solve the main problem - broken power armor - and would add controllability to a feature I do not think makes much sense to control.

Despite that example, I still find it hard to believe that there are more people who would try to abuse your configs, especially one for the bedrock sword, as opposed to using them for the right reason. For starters, if the player is changing a config for a single player world, then it would be hard to argue that they are screwing themselves over, wouldn't it?

The problem does not exist in singleplayer as there is no such thing as friendly fire.

So for those cases, we can assume the majority of admins who made config changes wouldn't be abusing them to screw their friends over.

You would be wrong. To be fair, they do not see it as "screwing their friends over" themselves, but I have had a number of people come to me on my forum thread and openly tell me that they tell their friends what they can and cannot do because of how they prefer to play.

Then there is the case of servers with a fair number of people who are strangers, or at the very least don't know each other very well. Abusing config options to screw people over is not a good way to keep people on a server. Thus, many avoid doing that.

Or, as mentioned earlier, they just hide the fact and use the sunk time cost to retain players. This is a problem with vanilla servers, too. One of the very first servers I ever joined - "KingsCraft" - banned the use of redstone because "it's too OP". I found out 9 days into building massive automatic farms.

Might as well play vanilla? Lol. That's not any more of a valid argument than "might as well play creative". Different players like different degrees of balance. Some like to play hardcore with no exploits or "OP" mods. Some will let an exploit slide if the feature is fun enough, and will enjoy playing with powerful items even if they are "unbalanced". Ftb has a relatively loose balance, but they still avoid exploits like ingots into ores, don't have the gravity gun mod due to lightning causing mods and Twilight Forest's uncrafting table (also why they removed the portal gun from dungeon loot tables), and they also don't support optifine. Even if their balance is loose, they still seek to eliminate game-breaking exploits.

What we have here is hardly a game-breaking exploit. Also, you made no indication in your previous post that my focus should be on FTB as opposed to "any other mod that adds invincible armor".

The ftb team makes heavy use of the available configs. While they sometimes remove features, they mostly just adjust values, choose one mod's ore generation over another, and such things. As I said, you could simply add a config to reduce the armor damaging effect of the bedrock sword, instead of removing it entirely. That way, that feature couldn't be completely removed.

Again, it would not solve the problem.

Whether you add such a config or not, you should still work to fix cross mod bugs and exploits. Like that Blood Magic example. Did they code their armor sloppily? I do not know. If it turns out your sword is the only thing that damages their armor, then I'd hardly call their code sloppy or blame them for the problem. Whether you solve the problem on your end or they solve it on theirs, you should still reach a solution for this bug, and any other cross mod exploits regarding your sword as you encounter them in the future.

That depends on how it is coded. Certain functions are called when players wearing armor take damage. The default functions increment the damage on the ItemStack, deleting the item entirely if it exceeds the maximum value. The correct way to make armor invincible is to override this and make it do nothing (as well as some other small changes). However, I have seen examples where the method of choice was instead things like repairing the armor on inventory tick, or setting the max damage parameter to some obscenely large value.
Similarly, fuelled items like the IC2 jetpack should not use damage values to represent both durability and fuel, as they currently do (damage 0-26 are fuel gradations, damage 27 is broken).

I've already said that they should always consider their players feelings.

Many do not. I see no reason not to force them to.

There shouldn't be a reason why the Bound armour would retain any sort of damage applied to the armour, if that is what I gained from the conversation (speed reading is a blessing and a curse), since it reals itself every tick. (Max damage of the armour is 1001, for those curious.)

As described above, why not just override this (posted is my way of doing it), to make it affect the network directly?

public void damageArmor(EntityLivingBase entity, ItemStack stack, DamageSource source, int damage, int slot) {
     if (this.canBeDamaged() && this.isVulnerableTo(source)) {
       stack.damageItem(damage, entity);
     }
   }

 

[WayofTime]

I suppose that might be a better way, although I will need to make sure it works with how the network is coded. Thanks

 

[Necr0maNceR]

Not really, when compared to other things in RC and other mods. Most people I see using it are using it specifically for the armor damage.

Even without the armor damage, it's a top-class unbreakable weapon that doesn't require any additional enchanting, and has a higher looting than almost anything else can get. The only things in other ftb mods that really come close to these values would be a VERY carefully crafted Tinkers Construct weapon, which would take loads of steps and tons of resources to make, and the Redstone Arsenal sword, which requires energy and can't get looting 5. The IC2 nano saber does a lot of damage, but only when it's charged, and it eats up energy pretty quickly. Plus, it can't be enchanted. If you added a config option with a minimum value for armor damage, that ability would always be there, it just wouldn't be as overwhelmingly powerful as before.

A viable idea, but it would not solve the main problem - broken power armor - and would add controllability to a feature I do not think makes much sense to control.

Broken power armor is a problem that your new fix will hopefully solve. As I've said before, controllability for this feature makes sense since it makes most armor from other mods obsolete. Because that ability is so powerful, it also makes most other melee weapons obsolete. I will get into this more below.

The problem does not exist in singleplayer as there is no such thing as friendly fire.

I was referring more to config options in general. All the values they tweak and settings they toggle would be for their own benefit.

You would be wrong. To be fair, they do not see it as "screwing their friends over" themselves, but I have had a number of people come to me on my forum thread and openly tell me that they tell their friends what they can and cannot do because of how they prefer to play.

As I've already said, players should choose servers with like-minded individuals. If someone has to play with others who have a different play style, then a compromise has to be reached. Not having an adjustable config for things means there is less room for compromise. Either use it all the way, or ban it. No middle ground. Forcing someone to use a certain play style is bad, but if you have a minimum value in the config, then they can't remove that feature. At the same time, others who seek compromise will be able to find it much more easily.

Or, as mentioned earlier, they just hide the fact and use the sunk time cost to retain players. This is a problem with vanilla servers, too. One of the very first servers I ever joined - "KingsCraft" - banned the use of redstone because "it's too OP". I found out 9 days into building massive automatic farms.

Indeed, hiding rules and tricking players is a very foul thing to do. Before a player chooses to invest a substantial amount of time in a server, they should check for things like this. Ask around and such. This is actually a good example for why you should add a config option for the bedrock sword's ability and such things. Did they disable redstone? No. They banned it. Either way, you aren't allowed to use it. A config option wouldn't change this. It would, however, have prevented you from using it in the first place, so that way you would have wasted much less time.

What we have here is hardly a game-breaking exploit. Also, you made no indication in your previous post that my focus should be on FTB as opposed to "any other mod that adds invincible armor".

It was completely game-breaking until you added the fix. Even now, it makes short work of armor that isn't your bedrock armor. This forces people to use your sword if they want to win in melee combat, and your armor if they want something that won't break. This causes them to forgo other options, since there isn't much of a choice. Some people would prefer it if the sword didn't automatically beat almost every armor, so that way there would be more viable options for pvp, and their expensive armor isn't trashed so easily.

My reference to FTB was due to fact that FTB is a popular modpack, and your mod is a part of it. The most frequent interactions your mod will have with other mods will be between it and the other mods in the FTB packs, since those are the ones it will most commonly be played with. Thus, you should focus on fixing problems between your mod and other mods in the same modpacks before moving on to mods not in packs with RotaryCraft. Plus, since the FTB team likes tweaking configs and eliminating cross mod exploits all for a better play experience, adding more configs on your part will help them.

Again, it would not solve the problem.

Adding fixes and talking to mod authors like you did solves the "breaking indestructible armor" problem. Adding an adjustable config with a minimum value means that if people want to use other melee weapons and armor in pvp without being completely outclassed, they can.

That depends on how it is coded. Certain functions are called when players wearing armor take damage. The default functions increment the damage on the ItemStack, deleting the item entirely if it exceeds the maximum value. The correct way to make armor invincible is to override this and make it do nothing (as well as some other small changes). However, I have seen examples where the method of choice was instead things like repairing the armor on inventory tick, or setting the max damage parameter to some obscenely large value.
Similarly, fuelled items like the IC2 jetpack should not use damage values to represent both durability and fuel, as they currently do (damage 0-26 are fuel gradations, damage 27 is broken).

Good. Spreading the word will help fix this.

Many do not. I see no reason not to force them to.

Not providing a config doesn't force abusive admins to respect their players. It only prevents good admins from helping them. A minimum value can stop the removal of the feature, while still giving other players a way to reach a compromise/adjust things more towards their play style.

 

[Reika]

Even without the armor damage, it's a top-class unbreakable weapon that doesn't require any additional enchanting, and has a higher looting than almost anything else can get. The only things in other ftb mods that really come close to these values would be a VERY carefully crafted Tinkers Construct weapon, which would take loads of steps and tons of resources to make, and the Redstone Arsenal sword, which requires energy and can't get looting 5. The IC2 nano saber does a lot of damage, but only when it's charged, and it eats up energy pretty quickly. Plus, it can't be enchanted. If you added a config option with a minimum value for armor damage, that ability would always be there, it just wouldn't be as overwhelmingly powerful as before.

Raw power tends to win that battle. In RotaryCraft alone, there is an easier-to-obtain (though harder to push to this extreme) tool that can deal 265 hearts of damage. People use that almost exclusively.

Broken power armor is a problem that your new fix will hopefully solve. As I've said before, controllability for this feature makes sense since it makes most armor from other mods obsolete. Because that ability is so powerful, it also makes most other melee weapons obsolete.

Not if it is sufficiently more costly or later in the techtree. RotaryCraft is designed to work best in the "extreme endgame" niche.

 

[WayofTime]

Raw power tends to win that battle. In RotaryCraft alone, there is an easier-to-obtain (though harder to push to this extreme) tool that can deal 265 hearts of damage. People use that almost exclusively.


Not if it is sufficiently more costly or later in the techtree. RotaryCraft is designed to work best in the "extreme endgame" niche.

I find that even if something is completely and utterly endgame, not allowing other items to be a good alternative with pros and cons (yes, I said cons) would quickly catapult it into the realm of overpowered, no matter how difficult it is to get.

 

[Reika]

I find that even if something is completely and utterly endgame, not allowing other items to be a good alternative with pros and cons (yes, I said cons) would quickly catapult it into the realm of overpowered, no matter how difficult it is to get.

And I would strongly disagree. If all the mods followed that, we would have stayed with the standards set by the first mod to be created, as anything that eclipsed it would be considered overpowered.

 

[KirinDave]

And I would strongly disagree. If all the mods followed that, we would have stayed with the standards set by the first mod to be created, as anything that eclipsed it would be considered overpowered.

What's going to happen here, realistically, is that the parts of your mod that totally ignore the entire ecosystem are going to start to have their recipes removed from modern modpacks. Many of us are doing it now, and some of us have tools so thorough that it won't even show up in NEI anymore.

So long as you know that's surely what'll happen then full speed ahead. Lots of people will like this because more is better.

 

[Reika]

What's going to happen here, realistically, is that the parts of your mod that totally ignore the entire ecosystem are going to start to have their recipes removed from modern modpacks. Many of us are doing it now, and some of us have tools so thorough that it won't even show up in NEI anymore.

So long as you know that's surely what'll happen then full speed ahead. Lots of people will like this because more is better.

One, you have just flat-out admitted to violating my terms of use.
Two, you have essentially told me "make it the way we want or we break it". How mature.
Three, you have alerted me that there are such tools. Time to break them on RC.

Now, to be fair, I am dubious that the recipes are actually removed unless you custom-wrote tools for RC, and even then, it would be difficult.
I have taken precautions against exactly what you describe.

 

[SatanicSanta]

One, you have just flat-out admitted to violating my terms of use.
Two, you have essentially told me "make it the way we want or we break it". How mature.
Three, you have alerted me that there are such tools. Time to break them on RC.

We aren't asking that you make it the way we want, we are asking that you give the option to have it the way we want. There's a difference.