I'm on Parcel's team, (https://twitter.com/parcel31u/status/525481428025606144)
FTB "Teams Challenge". Are you in?
- Thread starter jordsta95
- Start date
-
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
Yeah, I was a little busy and thinking of what I actually wanted to do with another pack.Good to see we didn't completely scare you off the other day
Very good and I am very creative at map making I wouldn't mind helping out with the configs
No rules about mod developers not being able to join? In this case, I might join with my waifu with someone... if i find anyone.
EDIT: Requesting a clarification of rule 5 - does rule 5 only apply to FTB modpacks? I have made private or server-specific packs with just about any theme imaginable (ran about 10-15 modded servers for the last 2.5 years), so...
EDIT 2: Requesting more clarifications:
a) Does rule 3 apply to a lack of explicit support (that is, neither of the mods implements compatibility for the other mod) or a lack of implicit support? (that is, if the mods use the same power system, they "interact" together).
EDIT: Requesting a clarification of rule 5 - does rule 5 only apply to FTB modpacks? I have made private or server-specific packs with just about any theme imaginable (ran about 10-15 modded servers for the last 2.5 years), so...
EDIT 2: Requesting more clarifications:
a) Does rule 3 apply to a lack of explicit support (that is, neither of the mods implements compatibility for the other mod) or a lack of implicit support? (that is, if the mods use the same power system, they "interact" together).
Last edited:
Waifu? I didn't think Vazkii made mod packs
Rule 5: I'd assume most of your packs are pre-1.7, so as long as it isn't an exact replica (e.g. let's pretend you made AgSkies, if you changed the lore, some of the quests, and the rewards... and maybe a new map, then I'd see nothing wrong with that. Especially if you have done EVERYTHING
)Rule 3: That is lack of explicit support (e.g. PneumaticCraft and Witchery interaction)
So what team name are you stealing Asie?
Also, @parcel31u I've added team Misc to the OP along with sgt. as a member
I don't know. I've never been a fan of rule 3 myself. I think a far better rule would be something that permits more creative ways at looking at what you're trying to achieve, that is unconventionality.
In fact, I don't think that should be a rule! That should be a scoring criteria - you should not force people to design modpacks in a specific way, as I am sure you can take two mods which usually work together and change them around (with other addon mods) to feel completely different! Or, for instance, take two mods which by default work together - and split them so that they form two different mods! Rule 3 should be a criteria of scoring, not enforced...
In fact, I don't think that should be a rule! That should be a scoring criteria - you should not force people to design modpacks in a specific way, as I am sure you can take two mods which usually work together and change them around (with other addon mods) to feel completely different! Or, for instance, take two mods which by default work together - and split them so that they form two different mods! Rule 3 should be a criteria of scoring, not enforced...
Rules updated
Although, in the end, the marking criteria are votes from people who have played the packs. So some people might like the mod interaction and some may not... So it could be interesting to see how the votes go
As long as we are asking about the rules: What's up with number 8?Rules updated
Although, in the end, the marking criteria are votes from people who have played the packs. So some people might like the mod interaction and some may not... So it could be interesting to see how the votes go
It means, essentially, IF YOU WANT TO FOLLOW THAT RULE (7 and 8 are optional) the pack you are making should be more focused in mods to add. So don't add a mod, just for the sake of adding it (e.g. adding mekanism, thermal expansion and IC2, but only having the pack focus on IC2)
What happens if you want to give diversity to the players then? Also this may just be me but this seems to encourage HQM packs, as they are generally the ones with a more tightly knit theme.
As I said, you don't have to follow those two rules (7&8) they are just there if you want to follow them. It's to encourage less of a cluttered pack (with 100's of mods but half of them do the same things)... but there is nothing stopping you from ignoring those two rules
Yeah, I was mostly just hoping to find out the specific intent behind that rule. Anyway I suppose the votes will speak for themselves, if you just make another kitchen sink pack then you probably aren't going to be noticed.As I said, you don't have to follow those two rules (7&8) they are just there if you want to follow them. It's to encourage less of a cluttered pack (with 100's of mods but half of them do the same things)... but there is nothing stopping you from ignoring those two rules
Exactly the reason behind the rule. You see you didn't need me to tell you
Also, it's just to try and hopefully push those who haven't made a pack before away from the "ADD ALL THE MODS" idea, so that they don't start at a disadvantage. Don't get me wrong, having a pack with 200 mods is cool and all, but if you have 8 different ore doubling machines...
jordsta95 - I'd like to file the name "Team Shinonome". For now, I'm going alone - by which I mean I'll try to find more people by Oct 31st (yes, feel free to ask me if you want to join). Also, a polite request: please anonymize entries for voting. Since we are trying to judge based on pack merits and not popularity, it makes sense to not make it straightforward as to who made what pack.
I recommend you do it how the MegaZeux community used to do it for their game contests: on 1st November, you assign every team a random number from 0 to 99999 and they have to use that number to identify themselves. On voting, every pack is named like that, with no mention of the authors. After the results are published, the numbers are linked to the respective teams.
...Though I'm not sure if the anonymization is a good idea, on second thought. Up to you and others.
I recommend you do it how the MegaZeux community used to do it for their game contests: on 1st November, you assign every team a random number from 0 to 99999 and they have to use that number to identify themselves. On voting, every pack is named like that, with no mention of the authors. After the results are published, the numbers are linked to the respective teams.
...Though I'm not sure if the anonymization is a good idea, on second thought. Up to you and others.
Last edited: