Content/Cross-Mod Compatibility in Forge/A Forge Sister-Mod?

[Type1Ninja]

I like coming back to this thread, every time I do, the arguments have changed. At this point (again), it comes down to 2 issues.

The first of which is the original one you wanted to tackle, and I think it's the reason that you've gotten as much opposition. The core of your argument is that you want mods to play nice with each other. You want to force/compel devs to make their mod play nice with each other. This kind of strikes at the root of the philosophy of mods. You mention that you get irritated that UE does it's own pulverisor/smelter equivalent, but that's the way it goes. The first grind/smelt ore doubling mechanic was (by my memory, others might remember older) IndistrialCraft. You could argue that the subsequent ones (Thermal Expansion, Factorisation, Ars Magica, Thaumcraft, Tinkers Construct, etc.) have all been people saying "I want to do that, but my way". That's usually at the heart of mods. Forcing mods to do things (ore gen, energy, etc.) a single way would be more likely to remove the modder's desire to make the wonderful things that they do.

Forge should enable people to do what they do, I (personally) don't think that they should dictate how it's done. That's something that the playerbase requests.


The other aspect is optimisations, and here there's precedent, there are quite a few things that Forge optimises over vanilla, and it does it well. The problem arises when there are "questionable" enchancements, such as those made by Fastcraft or Optifine, things that might work for most people, but not for everyone (some people report marked decreases in performance). These shouldn't be included, they're better off in their current, separate form. People know about them, and what they do, and are welcome to include them as required.

Things like NEI similarly have their own issues, and user affecting problems (crashing, lookup loops, performance hits, etc.), and there's simply no profit to forcing Forge to bundle them, other than annoying all devs in question.

These are arguments to be put to devs, and for them to weigh the merits of, not for players to take to any kind of "higher authority".

... You make some good points.
I really have nothing to say against this, except the tiny piece of me that says: "But if they were part of forge, then they'd be aggressively bugfixed all the time because everyone is using them!" Applying that to Fastcraft, Optifine, NEI, etc.
... But maybe I'm wrong there.

 

[Bibble]

... You make some good points.
I really have nothing to say against this, except the tiny piece of me that says: "But if they were part of forge, then they'd be aggressively bugfixed all the time because everyone is using them!" Applying that to Fastcraft, Optifine, NEI, etc.
... But maybe I'm wrong there.

Absolutely, but that destroys the point of Forge. Forge is fundamentally, an enabler. There isn't (as far as I know) anything that stops people doing anything. Nothing that detracts from the game.

When you start mandating tools and optimisations, you start detracting from other parts of the experience, which is not what Forge is or should be.

The "they'd be aggressively bugfixed all the time because everyone is using them!" argument should hold true regardless. If something is good, it's well used. You don't need to mandate that people use something, and interfere with mod cycles and desires.

I understand the point you're trying to make, but you're trying to remove control from the creators to do it, and that's just not the right way to go about it.

 

[Type1Ninja]

Absolutely, but that destroys the point of Forge. Forge is fundamentally, an enabler. There isn't (as far as I know) anything that stops people doing anything. Nothing that detracts from the game.

When you start mandating tools and optimisations, you start detracting from other parts of the experience, which is not what Forge is or should be.

The "they'd be aggressively bugfixed all the time because everyone is using them!" argument should hold true regardless. If something is good, it's well used. You don't need to mandate that people use something, and interfere with mod cycles and desires.

I understand the point you're trying to make, but you're trying to remove control from the creators to do it, and that's just not the right way to go about it.

That's true. The other thing, though, is compatibility. Let's say there's a popular mod - say, thermal expansion. Now, let's say a new modded starts making a mod. Somehow, they don't know about TE, and they create a new electricity system, almost identical to RF. Eventually, they'd probably learn of TE and adapt, but it would take a while and be a lot of work. I guess I think some way is needed to make sure that popular mods get really, really good publicity so that their APIs are used when they should be. This whole copying thing is much better than it used to be for sure, but it's something I would have liked to have when I first tried to make a mod pack.

 

[Reika]

Putting something into Forge is going to do nothing but strengthen the armies of

Do as everyone else does and use RF, there is a reason it's the standard. If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for you. Stop being such a special snowflake and do as the community wants.

I get enough hate mail trying to force me onto RF as it is, and do not need the extra generated by it being "official".

That's true. The other thing, though, is compatibility. Let's say there's a popular mod - say, thermal expansion. Now, let's say a new modded starts making a mod. Somehow, they don't know about TE, and they create a new electricity system, almost identical to RF. Eventually, they'd probably learn of TE and adapt, but it would take a while and be a lot of work. I guess I think some way is needed to make sure that popular mods get really, really good publicity so that their APIs are used when they should be. This whole copying thing is much better than it used to be for sure, but it's something I would have liked to have when I first tried to make a mod pack.

Compatibility in the sense of unification is often a bad idea. It destroys a mod's identity, and in the case of mods like mine, can also hideously unbalance it.

 

[Celestialphoenix]

To be honest- RF itself is just a passing fad. Give it another 6 months and there'll be a shiny new energynet supposedly "the" one to use, with that same crowd chanting RF is outdated and no one likes/uses it anymore- use newguy.API...

 

[RJS]

My biggest objection would be your idea here:

Or, they could eat Tinker's Construct, making it so that every mod now adds it's tools not as items but as a set of stats/modifiers for a new tool material

I think Tinker's Construct is a great mod. It has a really nice idea, it and it executes it well.

It's also really boring after the first two or three times. I'd rather have independent tools, each with pros and cons, as opposed to one all-encompassing toolset.

Ultimately the issue with your ideas is that you are limiting choice, which is what mods are all about. What is brilliant for you (as I assume your suggestions are) is hell for someone else, who is now forced to include a bunch of mods they don't like. Replace all tools with Tinkers? There will be a lot of people who will oppose that change and, in my best guess, will go and make their own 'Forge' to bypass that, thus making the system even more fragmented than before.

 

[FyberOptic]

To be honest- RF itself is just a passing fad. Give it another 6 months and there'll be a shiny new energynet supposedly "the" one to use, with that same crowd chanting RF is outdated and no one likes/uses it anymore- use newguy.API...

I chuckled when I read that because I honestly won't be surprised if I'm reading comments like that one day. There's really nothing wrong with RF, but it doesn't exactly have anything special going for it either other than being easy to use and popular right now.

Nobody thought IC2 would stop being the dominant tech mod, then TE happened and MJ became significantly more useful. Then almost out of the blue it switches to RF. And then the unthinkable, BuildCraft itself switches to RF. If the MJ API hadn't ended up with contentious issues then RF wouldn't exist and we'd possibly still be using power converters and everything the same as always. I think it's safe to say that we don't know what in the world things will be like in six months. And that's a good thing.

People adapt to incompatibility, but they quit at stagnation. That's why I feel that the community needs to flow in whatever direction it feels like with the least amount of "official" standards as possible.

 

[asiekierka]

People adapt to incompatibility, but they quit at stagnation. That's why I feel that the community needs to flow in whatever direction it feels like with the least amount of "official" standards as possible.

I am slowly working on making BuildCraft energy pipes support arbitrary energy systems, implemented via BuildCraftCompat (or future compat mods).

 

[malicious_bloke]

I am slowly working on making BuildCraft energy pipes support arbitrary energy systems, implemented via BuildCraftCompat (or future compat mods).

Including torque?

 

[asiekierka]

Including torque?

Arbitrary single-number-based power systems - so MJ, RF, FZ Charge, possibly EU in an output-only manner (input-only would require passing voltage). Think of it as a more stable Enetbridge, just off by default.

 

[Reika]

Including torque?

Show me a pipe carrying rotational mechanical power.

 

[asiekierka]

Show me a pipe carrying rotational mechanical power.

Don't dare a mod developer.

 

[Reika]

Don't dare a mod developer.

I meant realistically, and I doubt @malicious_bloke is a mod dev.

 

[Lethosos]

*points to the drive shaft of any car that transmits rotation to the rear axel*

Sent from my SGH-T769 using Tapatalk 2

 

[malicious_bloke]

I meant realistically, and I doubt @malicious_bloke is a mod dev.

Nope. I'm more an ideas man. A terrible ideas man

 

[Reika]

*points to the drive shaft of any car that transmits rotation to the rear axel*

Sent from my SGH-T769 using Tapatalk 2

Not a pipe.

 

[Lethosos]

It is, since a pipe's purpose is to protect what's flowing/moving inside it. A driveshaft fits the bill.

Sent from my SGH-T769 using Tapatalk 2

 

[asiekierka]

I meant realistically, and I doubt @malicious_bloke is a mod dev.

I meant myself.

 

[Reika]

I meant myself.

I know. But I know you are not going to go out of your way to break RC. After all, you are not an @$$hole.