Can the intrusiveness of GregTech be reigned in?

  • Please make sure you are posting in the correct place. Server ads go here and modpack bugs go here
  • The FTB Forum is now read-only, and is here as an archive. To participate in our community discussions, please join our Discord! https://ftb.team/discord

noskk

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
599
0
0
It's actually 4 methane and 1 empty for 180k, but that's quibbling. It's a shame, because my rubber farm has generated far more carbon plates than I'll use in months and I was hoping to convert over to adding hydrogen to all the extra carbon. But, he hints on the IC2 forums that centrifuging rubber trees will be less EU-profitable soon anyways so it may not matter.

There is a floor point where easy energy can't be nerfed by him anymore. Already, once you can get past the initial solar generator and get to the advanced one, you probably should. I made a conscious choice to avoid solar this game, which is why I'm using gas turbines, but the solar would have been a "better" option even now.

At some point people will just pump the nether for lava for EU generation as well as MJ.

Eh..I remember it was 5 methane cells if you were to use his electric crafting table
Yeah my bad it was 4 methane + 1 empty cell, anyway, it's been changed.. now you get 5 methane cells for net of 3.8k/methane..

No worries though, Nether lava might run dry.. people have to shift to something better like nuclear reactor, or the magma crucible later on..
 

DoctorOr

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
1,735
0
0
Eh..I remember it was 5 methane cells if you were to use his electric crafting table
Yeah my bad it was 4 methane + 1 empty cell, anyway, it's been changed.. now you get 5 methane cells for net of 3.8k/methane..

Yeah I just came here after updating to post this. It's been changed.

No worries though, Nether lava might run dry.. people have to shift to something better like nuclear reactor, or the magma crucible later on..

I really don't think we should be _encouraging_ magma crucible generation of lava. I'd much rather have a slightly excessive generation from a rubber tree farm rather than only one reasonable way to generate power that everybody always uses.
 

Hydra

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
1,869
0
0
I really don't think we should be _encouraging_ magma crucible generation of lava. I'd much rather have a slightly excessive generation from a rubber tree farm rather than only one reasonable way to generate power that everybody always uses.

I think pumps should not be able to pump lava in the Nether. The whole reason you can create lava from Netherrack is that it's basically the same as pumping lava but is a LOT less laggy than pumping the lava itself. Since this pumping causes lag issues (it's because every pump has to 'find' the most distant lava sourceblock every single pump action, this is an algorithmically complex undertaking) the Thermal Expansion dev added the option to melt Netherrack instead.

If pump cannot pump in the Nether anymore, you can also disable the netherrack recipe. Since the easiest source of 'free' energy is gone Solars can now be rebalanced as well. It should be completely impossible to generate enough energy through solars for stuff like furnaces, let alone for stuff like a mass fabricator.

Bottom line: free energy is a problem.
 

Enigmius1

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
499
0
0
I think pumps should not be able to pump lava in the Nether. The whole reason you can create lava from Netherrack is that it's basically the same as pumping lava but is a LOT less laggy than pumping the lava itself. Since this pumping causes lag issues (it's because every pump has to 'find' the most distant lava sourceblock every single pump action, this is an algorithmically complex undertaking) the Thermal Expansion dev added the option to melt Netherrack instead.

If pump cannot pump in the Nether anymore, you can also disable the netherrack recipe. Since the easiest source of 'free' energy is gone Solars can now be rebalanced as well. It should be completely impossible to generate enough energy through solars for stuff like furnaces, let alone for stuff like a mass fabricator.

Bottom line: free energy is a problem.

I can't say I agree. Excellent availability of EU from solar energy, for example, calls for a very substantial investment in materials. It's not free energy. You just pay for it all up front and the longer the panel stays in service, the better the return is on your initial investment. It doesn't matter whether you're using compact solars or advanced solars...either way it's a lot of resources that you'll be spending. I could spend far, FAR fewer resources and make a bank of geothermal generators, but then I have to concern myself with fuel. It's a trade-off. You can only claim solar energy is free if you conveniently ignore the cost of the panel, which is not an accurate way of assessing the cost of the energy it produces.

It's clear to me that some people see themselves as the mad engineer running from one machine to the next keeping them all running and tuned up and that's great. Not everyone plays to feed machines. It's not about "challenge" or lack there of, it's about how we like to spend our time. The 1 in 20 or so people who actually experiment with reactor layouts I would say are in a position to talk about challenge. The rest who just copy everyone else' layout and then strut around the forums boasting about how they like the "challenge" are talking out of their arse.

I don't need to babysit machines to find challenge in FTB, and I personally don't like the way the modded Minecraft scene is headed. It used to be that we'd contribute to wiki articles explaining the mechanics of the game itself. Now we need wiki articles explaining the mechanics of config files. That's not a step forward, imo.
 

raiju

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
448
-2
0
I don't need to babysit machines to find challenge in FTB, and I personally don't like the way the modded Minecraft scene is headed. It used to be that we'd contribute to wiki articles explaining the mechanics of the game itself. Now we need wiki articles explaining the mechanics of config files. That's not a step forward, imo.

That's because people aren't happy with some of a mods settings but want to keep it for other. Going into config files is completely unnecessary.
 

Hydra

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
1,869
0
0
I can't say I agree. Excellent availability of EU from solar energy, for example, calls for a very substantial investment in materials. It's not free energy. You just pay for it all up front and the longer the panel stays in service, the better the return is on your initial investment. It doesn't matter whether you're using compact solars or advanced solars...either way it's a lot of resources that you'll be spending. I could spend far, FAR fewer resources and make a bank of geothermal generators, but then I have to concern myself with fuel. It's a trade-off. You can only claim solar energy is free if you conveniently ignore the cost of the panel, which is not an accurate way of assessing the cost of the energy it produces.

I am not saying solar panels should be removed. I am saying that the amount of energy the current compact ones deliver are rediculous. The reason those exist is because normal solar panels are coded in a silly way and cause lag if you have a lot of them. This should not be the case. I'm fine with the normal ones that give 1/EU tick because the 'resource' normal solars use is space.

Ofcourse the compact ones are more costly but that's not a problem anymore once you have your first quarry. After that it gets so easy to just build more it's basically game breaking. GregTech tried (and failed) to solve that by simply making them more expensive but that doesn't solve the problem at all.

It's clear to me that some people see themselves as the mad engineer running from one machine to the next keeping them all running and tuned up and that's great. Not everyone plays to feed machines. It's not about "challenge" or lack there of, it's about how we like to spend our time. The 1 in 20 or so people who actually experiment with reactor layouts I would say are in a position to talk about challenge. The rest who just copy everyone else' layout and then strut around the forums boasting about how they like the "challenge" are talking out of their arse.

I don't understand how you relate that to my post. I'm not saying there should be only machines you need to baby-sit do I? A sugarcane > biomass > biofuel > boiler set up doesn't require any babysitting either. Neither does a proper reactor. However, those take both a real investment and space, as well as (in the case of a reactor) using finite resources.

I don't need to babysit machines to find challenge in FTB, and I personally don't like the way the modded Minecraft scene is headed. It used to be that we'd contribute to wiki articles explaining the mechanics of the game itself. Now we need wiki articles explaining the mechanics of config files. That's not a step forward, imo.

I fully agree on that last part. But like I said, in my opinion Greg is a nutjob :)
 

Squigie

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
96
0
0
I am not saying solar panels should be removed. I am saying that the amount of energy the current compact ones deliver are rediculous. The reason those exist is because normal solar panels are coded in a silly way and cause lag if you have a lot of them. This should not be the case. I'm fine with the normal ones that give 1/EU tick because the 'resource' normal solars use is space.

Ofcourse the compact ones are more costly but that's not a problem anymore once you have your first quarry. After that it gets so easy to just build more it's basically game breaking. GregTech tried (and failed) to solve that by simply making them more expensive but that doesn't solve the problem at all.

If your issue is with compact solars why did you say this?
It should be completely impossible to generate enough energy through solars for stuff like furnaces, let alone for stuff like a mass fabricator.
The electric furnace is among the simplest and least costly machines. If solar cannot power that it cannot power anything. In what way is their coding "silly"? Is there an effective way to simulate a large number of events per second without actually processing them? Your argument is lacking in coherence.

The logistical advantages to compressing 512 solars into a single block as compared to a nuclear reactor are undeniable, even with the colossal upfront costs. I suggest either removing the highest tier or reducing the scaling factor. Going from 8 to 4 would give HV arrays an output of 64, though perhaps that would be better with advanced solars rather than compact.

I think pumps should not be able to pump lava in the Nether. The whole reason you can create lava from Netherrack is that it's basically the same as pumping lava but is a LOT less laggy than pumping the lava itself. Since this pumping causes lag issues (it's because every pump has to 'find' the most distant lava sourceblock every single pump action, this is an algorithmically complex undertaking) the Thermal Expansion dev added the option to melt Netherrack instead.

Lava is 12.5 times as effective as coal. That's base Minecraft, and IC even diminishes that value, else geothermals would yield 50k EU per bucket. Should lave be pumpable at all? Should it be transportable by no containers other than basic buckets? The Nether is an easily accessed ocean of lava; with any automation at all the consequences are inescapable. Perhaps extracting energy from lava should be a much more complex and costly endeavor, but trying to hamper it's transport butts right up against the basic structures of the game and the mods. With a frame machine and deployers I could drain the Nether; with a dozen demonic queens I only need sand.
 

Abdiel

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
1,062
0
0
I personally love the fact that there are options. I think some people are forgetting that this is not primarily a competitive game. You're not fighting other people to have the most efficient power source in the least amount of area for least amount of work. Everyone is free to play in their own way, and no choice inherently disadvantages you. Do you want to focus on building majestic structures? Plop down a few solars, a quarry, and don't worry about resources anymore. Does that sound too cheap for you? Get in the nether, make a lava pump, and find a way to transport it in your world. Do you instead want a reactor to be carefully planned and maintained? Do you want to make a Rube-Goldberg machine creating energy using a dozen different steps from all the different mods? You are free to do so.

I have never built any advanced solar panel, I have never built a wind or water or Nether lava "free" energy powerplant. In my current world I have one quarry, and that was mining cracked sand from a wasteland biome. I haven't built a massfab, although by now I have the resources and power to do so easily. For me all of these simplify the game too much. Put down a block, free energy. Put down a block, free items. But do I mind if other people use them? Absolutely not. Why should I? It's not like Minecraft is a competition about who has the most diamonds/gems/iridium/UU/whatever.

I don't see how adding more options can ruin your enjoyment - as long as there is a tech route that you like.
 

noobbyte

Active Member
Jul 29, 2019
37
0
26
The only things that I want to change about GregTech are the lack of documentation about the config files and the inability to turn some dusts back into their respective ingots or gems. I want to be able to macerate diamond ore that I silktouched to get extra diamonds, instead of diamond dust that I can't use in my stage of the game. I haven't touched most of GregTech yet because I haven't been able to find enough iridium to get started, but Greg is really limiting me by not allowing me to macerate diamonds and get my double output. People sometimes say to get the industrial grinder, but it's pretty expensive at my point in the game.

Most of the other problems discussed are, to me, a nonissue. Everybody likes to do things their own way - some may like seeing lava cells in enderchests getting pumped out from both sides, or with teleport pipes, teleporting lava itself. Others may prefer the set-and-forget style of solar panels. If you're a server owner and want to nerf solars or lava, it's easy - just go into your VANILLA ic2 config and nerf the numbers (you'll have to ask someone else on more info though). It's the number of different ways you can do things that makes modded minecraft a better experience (to me) than vanilla.
 

Honza8D

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
122
0
0
The only things that I want to change about GregTech are the lack of documentation about the config files and the inability to turn some dusts back into their respective ingots or gems. I want to be able to macerate diamond ore that I silktouched to get extra diamonds, instead of diamond dust that I can't use in my stage of the game.
Implosion compressor can do that. (though you get 3 diamonds for 4 dusts, but its still better because you get 3 diamonds from 2 ores)
 

Abdiel

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
1,062
0
0
Why not just use a Fortune pickaxe on the ore? That will on average yield even more than 2 diamonds per ore.
 

RavynousHunter

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
2,784
-3
1
Unfortunately, unless you either a) farm a fair bit of experience, or b) get lucky, you're not guaranteed a Fortune enchant on any item you make, even if you're enchanting books. Shit, I experimented with it, myself, on a test map and it took me about half a stack of books (and 30 times that amount in xp levels) to get a Fortune book.

Though, if you end up in something like a redwood forest or similar biome with gigantic trees...cut them suckers down, and you'll have more wood than you could ever possibly need. Burn that into charcoal, grab experience, chop more wood, use charcoal to make more charcoal, repeat ad nauseam, and get a decent amount of experience per stack of wood you burn into charcoal. Hell, if you do like I did, and tack on Treecapitator mod, it becomes even easier, because you can actually cut the base of a tree and have the rest "fall down," instead of having floating bloody trees. I know some people will gripe, but its an efficiency and fun thing, for me. Spending 10 minutes hunting down a log hidden amongst a horde of leaves (so the thing will properly decay) on a particularly large tree is not fun, for me. I just want to cut the thing down, get my shit, and use it for whatever purpose I see fit.

GregTech, by default, is a bit annoying, with it altering several mechanics and recipes in ways that, to me, come off as more fake difficulty rather than actual challenge. Making a player be -required- to use a compressor (and, by extension, EU) just to make a simple storage block, then needing a macerator to turn that storage block back into ingots? That, right there, is bloody tedious, if ya ask me. Its not fun, its not challenging, its an extra step just for the sake of making everything require more damn steps to get to. Hell, the solar thing would bother me, but I personally don't use solars, like, at all, since I'm much more partial to lava. Lava just looks better, lol.

On the topic of free energy, players will always find a way to get what they want, even when working within the constraints of a given game and/or mod(-pack). If GregTech somehow, magically, fixed every known infinite energy bug in FTB tomorrow, I can pretty much guarantee you that, by that time next week, someone will have found a new way to get endless power again. Its not a question of if, but when. Trying to fight exploits in a game like Minecraft is an uphill battle in a blizzard, you will never succeed. You can close a lot of them down, and do so quite well, but there will always be bugs, there will always be exploits, and the players will find a way to get what they want, without resorting to cheating or modding.

That said, GregTech's config file could use some extra comments explaining some of the more...arcane bits of it. I pride myself on my ability to discern the meaning of obscure things one finds in places like config files, and even I get stumped by some of GregTech's config options, since I've got to go by name alone. I am trying to make something that'd make editing configuration files a bit less of a hassle...not having to fumble with whether or not you need to use Wordpad, or could get away with just Notepad, finding which section, in particular you're looking for, and perhaps, batch editing of options. Twill take some work, most of it trying to interpret what seems to be the Forge-standard config structure, but between actually playing the game, reading, and now college, my time available for such endeavors is less than what it used to be.
 

Abdiel

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
1,062
0
0
Books are much more difficult to get a decent enchant on than tools. I find that I can get Fortune on one in three or four diamond picks. And if you use it for nothing but valuable ores, it will last you for a long, long time even without unbreaking. Getting XP nowadays is fairly simple. Between random mobs, mining minerals, and smelting what I mine I can get from 0 to 30 in one or two caving trips without having a grinder or anything.

(Edit: besides, if you are getting ore blocks, I assume you have done some enchanting already.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chagrilled

Saice

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
4,020
0
1
Books are much more difficult to get a decent enchant on than tools. I find that I can get Fortune on one in three or four diamond picks. And if you use it for nothing but valuable ores, it will last you for a long, long time even without unbreaking. Getting XP nowadays is fairly simple. Between random mobs, mining minerals, and smelting what I mine I can get from 0 to 30 in one or two caving trips without having a grinder or anything.

Or one trip to the neither. Man they need to nerf them neither ores.
 

slay_mithos

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
1,288
0
0
Find a thaumcraft "dungeon" and use the two spawners as a base for XP farm.
Additionally, you can then hook tier 5 shards to the system and make it way more efficient.

Now, I just need to find melon, to make those damn potions...
 

noobbyte

Active Member
Jul 29, 2019
37
0
26
Implosion compressor can do that. (though you get 3 diamonds for 4 dusts, but its still better because you get 3 diamonds from 2 ores)
well 1) that gives you industrial diamonds and 2) i don't have an implosion compressor, how do you make one? Still quite noobish in terms of GT - as stated many times, the documentation is extremely lacking.
 

Honza8D

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
122
0
0
well 1) that gives you industrial diamonds and 2) i don't have an implosion compressor, how do you make one? Still quite noobish in terms of GT - as stated many times, the documentation is extremely lacking.
no it doesn't, even if it did industrial diamond is equal to normal diamond
use NEI to get the recipe, just type implosion compresor hover over it with mouse and pess R